New Yorkers For Growth: Tea Party Or Tempest In A Teapot?
Surely, we can all agree, at least in principle, with the Mission Statement of New Yorkers for Growth: New Yorkers for Growth (NYFG) is dedicated to the proposition that excessive taxes and government spending are driving jobs, people, and businesses out of New York State. NYFG will support candidates for the New York State Legislature who, regardless of party, favor and vote for 1) lower taxes, 2) reduced reliance upon debt, and 3) reform of State and local government spending practices.
In fact, upon the surface, at least, New Yorkers for Growth appears to echo the very sentiments we at The Community Alliance have long expressed on this blog:
New Yorkers for Growth is dedicated to the proposition that the prosperity of the Empire State requires a fundamental change in state and local economic policies. By virtually any measure, New York imposes higher taxes, with a more intrusive regulatory structure than any other state.
Citizens of this state are fleeing in droves. Western New York and most of the Upstate region have experienced actual population declines or population growth far below the national average. Suburban population growth on Long Island and Westchester is stagnant, hampered by the highest property taxes in the nation. Even New York City has registered only miniscule population increases and would have population declines were it not for immigration from abroad.
Clearly, New Yorkers are voting with their feet by moving to other states. Our citizens are fleeing New York and the political establishment typically responds with just more of the same: higher taxes, increased spending at levels twice or three times the inflation rate, and more borrowing.
Citizens are frustrated with the unwillingness or inability of Albany to recognize the competitive challenges facing our state and its economy. Special interests seeking higher spending, taxes and debt have almost total sway on the political process. New Yorkers for Growth seeks to address this situation by supporting candidates for state and local office who support fiscally responsible policies which will restore our economy.
But really, who is New Yorkers for Growth, and where do they stand on the issues near and dear?
Its Board Members include John Faso, Assemblymember from 1986 to 2002 and GOP nominee for Governor (no reformer of the spendthrift status quo in Albany was he), and one Tom Dewey. Hmmm. As in, Dewey Defeats Truman?
Why, there's even a former correspondent (Kristen Fealy) with Faux News.
On the issues, no question it's the spending -- and borrowing to spend some more -- that's crippling us here in New York, but query as to what is truly the foundation of the espoused causes when New Yorkers for growth propound the following remarks:
President Obama has demonized insurance and drug companies, and accused Medicare and Medicaid of inefficiency and waste...
Yes. Obama, bad. Insurance and drug companies, good. You mean Medicare and Medicaid aren't inefficient and wrought with waste and fraud?
Onerous requirements under the State Environmental Quality Review Act requiring developers to submit time-consuming and often very expensive environmental impact statements also increase costs. In many parts of New York City, ill-considered zoning restrictions make it impossible to build new housing. Excessive mandates drive up the cost of health insurance, while also creating what economists refer to as deadweight losses. All of these regulations contribute to the high cost of living. And there are many more. The question is how to reduce the impact of regulation and thus the cost of living.
Too much regulation? Concern over the environment? Wasn't too little regulation and lack of oversight responsible, in great measure, for the economic mess in which we now find ourselves? And, yeah. That global warming hoax is getting in the way of building houses, power plants, and incinerators. Damn those #@!^;$! environmentalists.
...(in Massachusets a) tax cap has forced government at all levels to recognize that taxpayers can't afford to give government a blank check. A tax cap in New York would bring about the same result, while at the same time assuring that our schools receive the resources they need to succeed.
Sure, cap the school property tax -- not cut or eliminate it -- at, say, 4% per year, and (you do the math), in just 3 short years, the tax will have increased by more than 10%. With a "cap" in place, the school property tax will more than double in only 25 years. [Thankfully, few of us will still be around to pay it!]
Enactment of a school property tax cap is the only viable solution to what ails New York's hard-pressed homeowners.
A tax cap it not the solution, let alone a viable alternative. Why, it's not even stop-gap. The solution is to put an end to spend, spend, spend at the local level (that means cost controls by school boards and less kowtowing to special interests, including the unions), no more unfunded mandates from either Albany or Washington, and the full financing of that free public school system, as is required under the NYS Constitution, by the State.
Now don't get us wrong. New Yorkers for Growth floats some ideas worthy of consideration, if not adoption, including Health Care Courts (no, they will not decide whether to pull the plug on Grandma), Tort reform (particularly in the area of medical malpractice), fundamental changes to New York's income tax laws, and a fresh look at workforce development.
But make no mistake. New Yorkers for growth is a PAC (Political Action Committee), whose mission is to elect candidates to State office who will adhere to the PAC's agenda, stated or otherwise.
Not to say that the organization's position -- endorsements will be non-partisan and the PAC will support candidates, regardless of party, who express support for policies of fiscal responsibility at the state and local level -- is one that we all can't applaud and support. Still, we have to be leary, and proceed with something more than passing caution, where the potential and the means exist to masquerade partisan politics of a most dangerous and destructive kind as economic growth through policies of fiscal responsibility.
After all, some of us still remember the Georges -- Pataki and Bush II -- both of whom wore the mantle of fiscal conservatives while creating deficit out of surplus.
We join with New Yorkers for Growth in calling for substantive and meaningful reforms in State and local government that, prudently implemented, will usher in an era of both fiscal and social responsibility, with resultant prosperity for all citizens of the Empire State.
Beyond that, we must remain ever vigilant that it isn't the fox (as in news, or otherwise) that is guarding the hen house!
Showing posts sorted by date for query onerous property tax. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query onerous property tax. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Fire In The Belly Of The Beast
Students At Risk In Illegal Basement Apartments
Illegal accessory apartments. Long a scourge in towns and hamlets across our island. A clear and present danger to their occupants. An onerous tax burden to law-abiding homeowners. A chronic problem for our schools. A major dtractor from our suburban quality of life. The raison d'etre for establishing The Community Alliance.
The battle to eradicate illegal rental apartments in single family homes, or at least to stem the tide of proliferation throughout Long Island's townships, waxes and wanes with public sentiment, and the pressures of other issues that crowd residents' plates.
We're up in arms, flailing away at elected officials, and then, just as suddenly, when the immediate furor of the front page news of twenty beds in a basement apartment or a family trapped below grade in a fire with no means of egress fades, the uproar subsides, and we go back into hibernation. [Much as we do, come to think of it, after every election cycle.]
The response from officialdom, be it to make it easier to identify and summons illegal accessory apartments -- codifying the "indicia", such as multiple utility meters or a half dozen mailboxes and door bells, and legislating "nail & mail" service upon errant homeowners -- has done little to hold back the influx of unlawful rentals, basement apartments being the norm (particularly in a bad economy) rather than an aberration.
The problem, as we've intimated all along, is multifaceted.
1. Inadequate enforcement. No law on the books will make a difference if it is overlooked, or only enforced by town building departments after the fact, as when a fire below brings word of an underground dwelling place to the surface.
2. Too few building inspectors. An excuse, rather than a reason. With all the people on payroll at the Town, surely there should not be a personnel issue.
3. Lack of affordable housing, particularly in the rental market. Single-family homes will barely make a dent in the dearth of affordable residences needed to house those who now seek refuge -- or an inexpensive roof overhead (typically not up to code) -- on Long Island. Multiple dwelling units, in and around "downtown," are critical, as is the need to increase density and, in some instances, go vertical.
4. A "that's just the way it is" attitude among residents. Indifference. Apathy. "There's nothing we can do," are the thorns in the side of progress, and certainly, a major roadblock to remedying the illegal accessory apartment crisis. A constant, pounding force exerted upon our elected representatives to tackle this pressing concern once and for all -- with more than just lip service or the occasional summons -- is required. The once-in-a-blue-moon moan, or the here-and-again din will simply not move the mountain.
And it's not just college students who are living in often substandard illegal rentals. It's our young workforce, mom, dad and the kids, and seniors forced from their homes by increasing taxes and diminshing incomes.
Long Islanders need to wake up to the fact that "nuisances" such as illegal accessory apartments are not only the fodder for more cars on our residential streets, more trash at the curb, over usage of our water supply, and too many kids in the classroom. Illegal accessory apartments are as much a part and parcel of the property tax dilemma as are school budgets, special districts, and too many governmental hands in our pockets.
Add to this the risk to both life and property, and illegal rentals are, indeed, the recipe for disaster.
- - -
From Newsday:
Hofstra students escape blaze in Uniondale house
by EDEN LAIKIN AND LAURA RIVERA / eden.laikin@newsday.com, laura.rivera@newsday.com
A fire in a Uniondale house occupied by several Hofstra University students prompted the Town of Hempstead to issue three summonses to the landlord for violations involving illegal use of a single-family house.
No one was hurt in Tuesday's fire, which was started by an unattended candle in the basement, a Uniondale fire official said.
But the blaze illuminated what fire officials and neighborhood residents call an ongoing problem: the influx of illegal student rentals in the area.
Hempstead building officials issued the court appearance tickets to Francisco Iannucci, who owns the Meadowbrook Road home, for code violations including creating separate living quarters with locks on bedroom doors and allowing tenants to sleep in the basement.
Iannucci could not be reached for comment.
Uniondale Assistant Fire Chief Howard Long said department members arrived shortly after the 8:40 a.m. call to find "a lot of smoke" in the basement and a "working fire about to take off."
He said one tenant living in the basement said she had left a lit candle on a table while she took a shower. The flame ignited "some contents on the table," Long said. Six people were exiting the house when firefighters arrived, he said, and three others had left earlier for classes.
Tenant Melissa Feil, 21, said she was roused from sleep in her second-floor room by wailing fire alarms. "We were definitely scared because everyone that lives in the house, we were all sleeping in our own bedrooms, so we didn't really know where it [the fire] was coming from," she said.
She said she rushed down the stairs to the first floor, where the smoke was thickening, then ran out of the house with some of her house mates.
Long said the fire was contained in the basement, but the upper floors were damaged by smoke.
Feil and another occupant, Casey, 22, who declined to give his last name, both seniors at Hofstra, said they've rented the two-story house for a year with three other friends, all seniors at the college. Hofstra officials said they're working to secure emergency housing for students who request it.
Uniondale civic activists say they've been complaining for years about absentee landlords buying houses in the area and renting out rooms to Hofstra students with what they say is little concern for the neighborhood.
"Why are we allowing our community to become a renter's paradise?" asked Melvyn Harris, president of the Nostrand Gardens Civic Association. "If you're going to rent out your house like that, how come you're not paying commercial taxes?"
Harris said he gets complaints from other residents every month about loud parties and underage drinking in the rental houses.
Town Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby said she has forwarded residents' complaints to town building officials about seven other student houses.
Illegal accessory apartments. Long a scourge in towns and hamlets across our island. A clear and present danger to their occupants. An onerous tax burden to law-abiding homeowners. A chronic problem for our schools. A major dtractor from our suburban quality of life. The raison d'etre for establishing The Community Alliance.
The battle to eradicate illegal rental apartments in single family homes, or at least to stem the tide of proliferation throughout Long Island's townships, waxes and wanes with public sentiment, and the pressures of other issues that crowd residents' plates.
We're up in arms, flailing away at elected officials, and then, just as suddenly, when the immediate furor of the front page news of twenty beds in a basement apartment or a family trapped below grade in a fire with no means of egress fades, the uproar subsides, and we go back into hibernation. [Much as we do, come to think of it, after every election cycle.]
The response from officialdom, be it to make it easier to identify and summons illegal accessory apartments -- codifying the "indicia", such as multiple utility meters or a half dozen mailboxes and door bells, and legislating "nail & mail" service upon errant homeowners -- has done little to hold back the influx of unlawful rentals, basement apartments being the norm (particularly in a bad economy) rather than an aberration.
The problem, as we've intimated all along, is multifaceted.
1. Inadequate enforcement. No law on the books will make a difference if it is overlooked, or only enforced by town building departments after the fact, as when a fire below brings word of an underground dwelling place to the surface.
2. Too few building inspectors. An excuse, rather than a reason. With all the people on payroll at the Town, surely there should not be a personnel issue.
3. Lack of affordable housing, particularly in the rental market. Single-family homes will barely make a dent in the dearth of affordable residences needed to house those who now seek refuge -- or an inexpensive roof overhead (typically not up to code) -- on Long Island. Multiple dwelling units, in and around "downtown," are critical, as is the need to increase density and, in some instances, go vertical.
4. A "that's just the way it is" attitude among residents. Indifference. Apathy. "There's nothing we can do," are the thorns in the side of progress, and certainly, a major roadblock to remedying the illegal accessory apartment crisis. A constant, pounding force exerted upon our elected representatives to tackle this pressing concern once and for all -- with more than just lip service or the occasional summons -- is required. The once-in-a-blue-moon moan, or the here-and-again din will simply not move the mountain.
And it's not just college students who are living in often substandard illegal rentals. It's our young workforce, mom, dad and the kids, and seniors forced from their homes by increasing taxes and diminshing incomes.
Long Islanders need to wake up to the fact that "nuisances" such as illegal accessory apartments are not only the fodder for more cars on our residential streets, more trash at the curb, over usage of our water supply, and too many kids in the classroom. Illegal accessory apartments are as much a part and parcel of the property tax dilemma as are school budgets, special districts, and too many governmental hands in our pockets.
Add to this the risk to both life and property, and illegal rentals are, indeed, the recipe for disaster.
- - -
From Newsday:
Hofstra students escape blaze in Uniondale house
by EDEN LAIKIN AND LAURA RIVERA / eden.laikin@newsday.com, laura.rivera@newsday.com
A fire in a Uniondale house occupied by several Hofstra University students prompted the Town of Hempstead to issue three summonses to the landlord for violations involving illegal use of a single-family house.
No one was hurt in Tuesday's fire, which was started by an unattended candle in the basement, a Uniondale fire official said.
But the blaze illuminated what fire officials and neighborhood residents call an ongoing problem: the influx of illegal student rentals in the area.
Hempstead building officials issued the court appearance tickets to Francisco Iannucci, who owns the Meadowbrook Road home, for code violations including creating separate living quarters with locks on bedroom doors and allowing tenants to sleep in the basement.
Iannucci could not be reached for comment.
Uniondale Assistant Fire Chief Howard Long said department members arrived shortly after the 8:40 a.m. call to find "a lot of smoke" in the basement and a "working fire about to take off."
He said one tenant living in the basement said she had left a lit candle on a table while she took a shower. The flame ignited "some contents on the table," Long said. Six people were exiting the house when firefighters arrived, he said, and three others had left earlier for classes.
Tenant Melissa Feil, 21, said she was roused from sleep in her second-floor room by wailing fire alarms. "We were definitely scared because everyone that lives in the house, we were all sleeping in our own bedrooms, so we didn't really know where it [the fire] was coming from," she said.
She said she rushed down the stairs to the first floor, where the smoke was thickening, then ran out of the house with some of her house mates.
Long said the fire was contained in the basement, but the upper floors were damaged by smoke.
Feil and another occupant, Casey, 22, who declined to give his last name, both seniors at Hofstra, said they've rented the two-story house for a year with three other friends, all seniors at the college. Hofstra officials said they're working to secure emergency housing for students who request it.
Uniondale civic activists say they've been complaining for years about absentee landlords buying houses in the area and renting out rooms to Hofstra students with what they say is little concern for the neighborhood.
"Why are we allowing our community to become a renter's paradise?" asked Melvyn Harris, president of the Nostrand Gardens Civic Association. "If you're going to rent out your house like that, how come you're not paying commercial taxes?"
Harris said he gets complaints from other residents every month about loud parties and underage drinking in the rental houses.
Town Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby said she has forwarded residents' complaints to town building officials about seven other student houses.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
No "New" Property Taxes For Nassau
Yes, But What About The "Old" Ones?
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi makes that "read my lips" promise of no new taxes. Terrific. As if Nassau's taxpayers, pockets already picked clear down to the lint (why, they've even taken the lint), could bear yet another tax, fee, or surcharge.
The fodder of the campaign trail notwithstanding, truth be told, County taxes account for only 18%, give or take a percentage point, of the total property tax bill, Town taxes (including special districts), 20%, Library, 6%, and -- guess what -- school taxes, a whopping 56%.
Yes, your school property taxes account for more than half -- in some districts, well over 60% -- of the property tax bill.
That's an outrage, and a blatant affront to Nassau County's homeowners, who bear the brunt of government's malaise in making over a system of school financing that is, to say the least, fundamentally flawed.
Holding the line on County property taxes is great. We'd expect, and should demand, no less, particularly in this economy.
But when will lawmakers -- from the County Seat to Albany -- take up the cause, with more than mere rhetoric, of school finance reform?
When will folks in the State Legislature pay more than lip service to a problem that threatens to bankrupt the middle class, living up the the mandate of New York's Constitution to "provide for the maintenance and support of a free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated"?
Why does New York continue to pour millions of tax dollars into private and parochial schools -- far beyond money for transportation -- when that same NYS Constitution specifically prohibits such public funding? ["Neither the state nor any subdivision of there shall use its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denomination tenet or doctrine is taught but The legislature may provide for the transportation of children to and from any school or institution of learning."]
When will the archaic State School Aid formulae, which favors upstate districts, while penny-pinching Long Island, be repealed, this in favor of full public funding of our public schools?
And when will our elected officials (as in, "why do we keep electing them?") finally eliminate the onerous and regressive property tax in favor of more fair, equitable, and progressive means of utilizing tax dollars to pay for public education?
Face it. Freezing (slashing would suit us better) County taxes, Town taxes, even those pesky Special District taxes is a good beginning, but frankly, it won't even make an appreciable dent in that humongous property tax bill.
Unless and until we -- through the common sense austerity of our local school boards, and the mandate of the State -- bring school spending under control, consolidating services, trimming costs, lowering (not capping) tax rates, our property tax bills will continue to hover at, or above, the unaffordable.
Our government has no problem taxing its citizens, or, for that matter, spending our money. The time has come (in fact, its long overdue), for that government to tax less, and spend more wisely.
New Yorkers, including Nassau County homeowners, should insist that school finance reform top the political agenda.
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi makes that "read my lips" promise of no new taxes. Terrific. As if Nassau's taxpayers, pockets already picked clear down to the lint (why, they've even taken the lint), could bear yet another tax, fee, or surcharge.
The fodder of the campaign trail notwithstanding, truth be told, County taxes account for only 18%, give or take a percentage point, of the total property tax bill, Town taxes (including special districts), 20%, Library, 6%, and -- guess what -- school taxes, a whopping 56%.
Yes, your school property taxes account for more than half -- in some districts, well over 60% -- of the property tax bill.
That's an outrage, and a blatant affront to Nassau County's homeowners, who bear the brunt of government's malaise in making over a system of school financing that is, to say the least, fundamentally flawed.
Holding the line on County property taxes is great. We'd expect, and should demand, no less, particularly in this economy.
But when will lawmakers -- from the County Seat to Albany -- take up the cause, with more than mere rhetoric, of school finance reform?
When will folks in the State Legislature pay more than lip service to a problem that threatens to bankrupt the middle class, living up the the mandate of New York's Constitution to "provide for the maintenance and support of a free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated"?
Why does New York continue to pour millions of tax dollars into private and parochial schools -- far beyond money for transportation -- when that same NYS Constitution specifically prohibits such public funding? ["Neither the state nor any subdivision of there shall use its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denomination tenet or doctrine is taught but The legislature may provide for the transportation of children to and from any school or institution of learning."]
When will the archaic State School Aid formulae, which favors upstate districts, while penny-pinching Long Island, be repealed, this in favor of full public funding of our public schools?
And when will our elected officials (as in, "why do we keep electing them?") finally eliminate the onerous and regressive property tax in favor of more fair, equitable, and progressive means of utilizing tax dollars to pay for public education?
Face it. Freezing (slashing would suit us better) County taxes, Town taxes, even those pesky Special District taxes is a good beginning, but frankly, it won't even make an appreciable dent in that humongous property tax bill.
Unless and until we -- through the common sense austerity of our local school boards, and the mandate of the State -- bring school spending under control, consolidating services, trimming costs, lowering (not capping) tax rates, our property tax bills will continue to hover at, or above, the unaffordable.
Our government has no problem taxing its citizens, or, for that matter, spending our money. The time has come (in fact, its long overdue), for that government to tax less, and spend more wisely.
New Yorkers, including Nassau County homeowners, should insist that school finance reform top the political agenda.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Memo To Suozzi: Don't Link Property Tax To Income Tax. . .
. . .Unless The Property Tax Is Replaced By An Income Tax
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi railed against a tax increase on residents with incomes of $250,000 or more (the so-called "fair share tax"), saying New Yorkers should "revolt" if there is an increase in the income tax without a corresponding cap on -- or some sort of stabilization of -- the property tax.
Why tie an income tax on the wealthy -- the 3.2% of New Yorkers who, for decades, have enjoyed generous tax breaks afforded through lucrative loopholes, for which the other 96.8% of us pay handily -- to the onerous property tax, which burdens residential property owners, particularly those in Nassau County, most unfairly?
What has one tax (based solely on income) got to do with the other tax (based solely on the assessed value of one's property)? Absolutely nothing!
Of course, mention taxes, of any variety, and the ire of the general populace is raised, every feather ruffled. "Revolt!"
Revolt, indeed.
What is most revolting is the failure of state, county and local government to take any meaningful remedial action -- whether by cap, consolidation, cost reduction, or elimination -- that would effectively reduce local property taxes.
Instead, it is study, conclude, report, and then, when nothing constructive happens, shift the focus away from the skyrocketing property tax -- which is decimating homeowners on Long Island, particularly in these difficult financial times -- onto a suggested increase of the income tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers.
Yes, it would be nice if we didn't have to tax the rich at a higher rate than we tax the middle class. In fact, it would be wonderful if there was no income tax at all. Keep every dollar in pocket, and everybody goes home happy.
In reality, every New Yorker must pay his or her fair share when it comes to financing the objectives of a democratic society [though some of us wish we had the line-item veto], meaning that, here in America, the rich are called upon to pay more than the poor. Certainly, the wealthy should, at the very least, pay their fair share.
The Community Alliance supports the fair share tax, and urges the New York State legislature to act accordingly -- or to act at all, for that matter.
We also call for, as a separate and distinct issue, true property tax relief, substantive rather than pro forma. Toward that end, the consideration of a local progressive income tax to replace the regressive property tax, among other reforms, must be on the table.
The undo burden placed upon homeowners to carry schools, towns, counties and special districts needs to be addressed with more than studies by Blue Ribbon commissions, ersatz relief in the form of STAR rebates, and mere rhetoric by elected officials -- well-intentioned as it may be -- calling for a taxpayer revolt.
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi railed against a tax increase on residents with incomes of $250,000 or more (the so-called "fair share tax"), saying New Yorkers should "revolt" if there is an increase in the income tax without a corresponding cap on -- or some sort of stabilization of -- the property tax.
Why tie an income tax on the wealthy -- the 3.2% of New Yorkers who, for decades, have enjoyed generous tax breaks afforded through lucrative loopholes, for which the other 96.8% of us pay handily -- to the onerous property tax, which burdens residential property owners, particularly those in Nassau County, most unfairly?
What has one tax (based solely on income) got to do with the other tax (based solely on the assessed value of one's property)? Absolutely nothing!
Of course, mention taxes, of any variety, and the ire of the general populace is raised, every feather ruffled. "Revolt!"
Revolt, indeed.
What is most revolting is the failure of state, county and local government to take any meaningful remedial action -- whether by cap, consolidation, cost reduction, or elimination -- that would effectively reduce local property taxes.
Instead, it is study, conclude, report, and then, when nothing constructive happens, shift the focus away from the skyrocketing property tax -- which is decimating homeowners on Long Island, particularly in these difficult financial times -- onto a suggested increase of the income tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers.
Yes, it would be nice if we didn't have to tax the rich at a higher rate than we tax the middle class. In fact, it would be wonderful if there was no income tax at all. Keep every dollar in pocket, and everybody goes home happy.
In reality, every New Yorker must pay his or her fair share when it comes to financing the objectives of a democratic society [though some of us wish we had the line-item veto], meaning that, here in America, the rich are called upon to pay more than the poor. Certainly, the wealthy should, at the very least, pay their fair share.
The Community Alliance supports the fair share tax, and urges the New York State legislature to act accordingly -- or to act at all, for that matter.
We also call for, as a separate and distinct issue, true property tax relief, substantive rather than pro forma. Toward that end, the consideration of a local progressive income tax to replace the regressive property tax, among other reforms, must be on the table.
The undo burden placed upon homeowners to carry schools, towns, counties and special districts needs to be addressed with more than studies by Blue Ribbon commissions, ersatz relief in the form of STAR rebates, and mere rhetoric by elected officials -- well-intentioned as it may be -- calling for a taxpayer revolt.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Kick Me Kate!
Murray Proposes 6.6% Tax Hike For Hempstead Town
It wasn’t all that long ago that Town of Hempstead Supervisor, Kate Murray, was issuing press releases and generating Murraygrams (at taxpayer expense) to announce that she was “holding the line” on property taxes, or, as if leaving homeowners out in the cold was something to be proud of, “freezing” town taxes.
Well, no press release or Murraygram to accompany the proposed Town of Hempstead budget for 2009, where homeowners in the unincorporated areas of the township will, if Kate Murray has her way, “enjoy” a 6.6% increase in town-imposed property taxes – not including any hike in special district taxes, the control over which the town summarily disavows.
Harkin back to the days of former Supervisor Rich Guardino, who was plucked from elected office as Town Supervisor for a presumably more colloquial life in academia. Rich left the town in relatively good stead, financially, with an “official” surplus of some $50 million dollars. [We say “officially,” as those in the know in Hempstead Town at the time put that surplus closer to $100 million.]
Enter Kate Murray and, lo and behold, that surplus mysteriously evaporates into thin air.
Where did all that money go? To fix town roads? Hardly. To make local government more efficient? Don’t make us laugh. Back to the taxpayers? Now, you’re pushing it.
Turning surpluses into deficits, and growing government, rather than shrinking it, is not only the stuff that Washington, D.C. is made of, or so it would appear as the “respected on Wall Street” crowd at Hempstead Town Hall learns, at the expense of homeowners, that “borrow and spend,” like the historical downturns in the market, eventually catches up with you.
With falling revenues and an unprecedented financial gloom hanging over Long Island, an increase in property taxes was, more or less, inevitable. Credit is tight. State aid to localities is harder to come by. Costs are, as Kate Murray aptly puts it in her budget statement, “skyrocketing.”
Still, a 6.6% increase in the already onerous tax burden is a bit much to be shouldered by Town of Hempstead homeowners, already straining to keep afloat in a sea of rising school and county taxes, and home values that, in some neighborhoods, have declined as much as 20% over the past year. This is especially so when, year after year, the Supervisor has boasted as to the town’s fiscal prowess and financial muscle.
And why is it that the poor souls without benefit of village life – the abandoned and neglected of unincorporated hovels like Elmont, Baldwin, Uniondale, and West Hempstead, to name but a few – are called upon to bear the cost of the town’s tax hike, while the incorporated get a free ride under the Supervisor’s proposal?
Then again, why ask? It would seem that the unincorporated hitherlands, with little say, and even less in the way of actual representation, are the favorite dumping grounds for the Town of Hempstead’s refuse, both literally and figuratively.
Kate Murray, having gratuitously turned America’s largest town into America’s most blighted township, now looks to add a new mark upon the cross us townies must bear: The Town of Hempstead – America’s most taxed township.
Yes, if you want the services – such as those provided by lighting districts, parking districts, refuse disposal districts, and the like (sorry folks, but sanitary districts and water districts will cost you extra, as they’re not included in the town tab), you have to pay the price.
And for the 6.6% extra you’ll cough up toward Kate’s kitty in 2009, the town will throw in an Urban Renewal Plan here, and a Condemnation Proceeding there. [If you dig deep enough into your pocket, you may even get a Victorian-style lamp post, or two.]
Kate Murray. Trusted on Main Street no more!
- - -
From The Three Village Times
Opinion
Wrong Time to Raise Taxes?
Not for Town of Hempstead
During the Presidential campaign, Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has said that now is the wrong time to raise taxes. Senator McCain believes with a struggling economy, additional taxes would put another hardship on taxpayers. But don't tell that to the Town of Hempstead. With families hurting with possible escalating oil prices for the winter and a troubled market, Republican Town of Hempstead Supervisor Kate Murray plans on increasing taxes for residents of the unincorporated areas of the town such as West Hempstead, Franklin Square and Elmont by 6.6 percent or $45.90 over the 2008 budget, according to Murray's 2009 budget message.
Supervisor Murray cites plummeting mortgage revenues as well as softening sales tax receipts as pressures that come with the 2009 budget. However, the 2009 budget proposal calls for a $4.9 million spending increase over the 2008 budget.
With families hurting financially, residents need their government officials to keep spending in check. However, it seems that the easier solution is to go to the taxpayers for more money in order to feed the machine of government.
The town should at least take a longer look at its budget before having to ask the taxpayers to pay even more money. If you live in Elmont, West Hempstead and Franklin Square, the unincorporated areas, you will find yourself paying more money and what have you gotten in return?
In West Hempstead, many residents simply want the Courtesy Hotel to close. Nothing has happened yet. In Elmont, people want a redevelopment of areas that are underdeveloped. Nothing has happened yet.
Perhaps if the town were to act on some of the projects that never seem to get done, then more revenue will be brought in and there will be no need to ask homeowners to pay more than they are already paying. It's time for the town to do more for these residents than just tax them.
- Joe Rizza
The writer is the editor of the Three Village Times.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Town of Hempstead Supervisor, Kate Murray, was issuing press releases and generating Murraygrams (at taxpayer expense) to announce that she was “holding the line” on property taxes, or, as if leaving homeowners out in the cold was something to be proud of, “freezing” town taxes.
Well, no press release or Murraygram to accompany the proposed Town of Hempstead budget for 2009, where homeowners in the unincorporated areas of the township will, if Kate Murray has her way, “enjoy” a 6.6% increase in town-imposed property taxes – not including any hike in special district taxes, the control over which the town summarily disavows.
Harkin back to the days of former Supervisor Rich Guardino, who was plucked from elected office as Town Supervisor for a presumably more colloquial life in academia. Rich left the town in relatively good stead, financially, with an “official” surplus of some $50 million dollars. [We say “officially,” as those in the know in Hempstead Town at the time put that surplus closer to $100 million.]
Enter Kate Murray and, lo and behold, that surplus mysteriously evaporates into thin air.
Where did all that money go? To fix town roads? Hardly. To make local government more efficient? Don’t make us laugh. Back to the taxpayers? Now, you’re pushing it.
Turning surpluses into deficits, and growing government, rather than shrinking it, is not only the stuff that Washington, D.C. is made of, or so it would appear as the “respected on Wall Street” crowd at Hempstead Town Hall learns, at the expense of homeowners, that “borrow and spend,” like the historical downturns in the market, eventually catches up with you.
With falling revenues and an unprecedented financial gloom hanging over Long Island, an increase in property taxes was, more or less, inevitable. Credit is tight. State aid to localities is harder to come by. Costs are, as Kate Murray aptly puts it in her budget statement, “skyrocketing.”
Still, a 6.6% increase in the already onerous tax burden is a bit much to be shouldered by Town of Hempstead homeowners, already straining to keep afloat in a sea of rising school and county taxes, and home values that, in some neighborhoods, have declined as much as 20% over the past year. This is especially so when, year after year, the Supervisor has boasted as to the town’s fiscal prowess and financial muscle.
And why is it that the poor souls without benefit of village life – the abandoned and neglected of unincorporated hovels like Elmont, Baldwin, Uniondale, and West Hempstead, to name but a few – are called upon to bear the cost of the town’s tax hike, while the incorporated get a free ride under the Supervisor’s proposal?
Then again, why ask? It would seem that the unincorporated hitherlands, with little say, and even less in the way of actual representation, are the favorite dumping grounds for the Town of Hempstead’s refuse, both literally and figuratively.
Kate Murray, having gratuitously turned America’s largest town into America’s most blighted township, now looks to add a new mark upon the cross us townies must bear: The Town of Hempstead – America’s most taxed township.
Yes, if you want the services – such as those provided by lighting districts, parking districts, refuse disposal districts, and the like (sorry folks, but sanitary districts and water districts will cost you extra, as they’re not included in the town tab), you have to pay the price.
And for the 6.6% extra you’ll cough up toward Kate’s kitty in 2009, the town will throw in an Urban Renewal Plan here, and a Condemnation Proceeding there. [If you dig deep enough into your pocket, you may even get a Victorian-style lamp post, or two.]
Kate Murray. Trusted on Main Street no more!
- - -
From The Three Village Times
Opinion
Wrong Time to Raise Taxes?
Not for Town of Hempstead
During the Presidential campaign, Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has said that now is the wrong time to raise taxes. Senator McCain believes with a struggling economy, additional taxes would put another hardship on taxpayers. But don't tell that to the Town of Hempstead. With families hurting with possible escalating oil prices for the winter and a troubled market, Republican Town of Hempstead Supervisor Kate Murray plans on increasing taxes for residents of the unincorporated areas of the town such as West Hempstead, Franklin Square and Elmont by 6.6 percent or $45.90 over the 2008 budget, according to Murray's 2009 budget message.
Supervisor Murray cites plummeting mortgage revenues as well as softening sales tax receipts as pressures that come with the 2009 budget. However, the 2009 budget proposal calls for a $4.9 million spending increase over the 2008 budget.
With families hurting financially, residents need their government officials to keep spending in check. However, it seems that the easier solution is to go to the taxpayers for more money in order to feed the machine of government.
The town should at least take a longer look at its budget before having to ask the taxpayers to pay even more money. If you live in Elmont, West Hempstead and Franklin Square, the unincorporated areas, you will find yourself paying more money and what have you gotten in return?
In West Hempstead, many residents simply want the Courtesy Hotel to close. Nothing has happened yet. In Elmont, people want a redevelopment of areas that are underdeveloped. Nothing has happened yet.
Perhaps if the town were to act on some of the projects that never seem to get done, then more revenue will be brought in and there will be no need to ask homeowners to pay more than they are already paying. It's time for the town to do more for these residents than just tax them.
- Joe Rizza
The writer is the editor of the Three Village Times.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Who Will Assess The Next Assessor?
To Elect Or Appoint? That Is The Question!
Next Tuesday, November 4th, Nassau County residents will go to the polls to elect a president, members of Congress, and State Legislators, among sundry other office holders, from judges to town council members.
Also on the ballot is a Referendum which, if passed, would replace the now-elected (for a 6-year term) Chairman of the County Board of Assessors (commonly known and often misidentified as “the Assessor”) with an appointed (for a 3-year term) Assessor, hand-chosen by the County Executive, and confirmed by the Nassau County Legislature.
The theory behind the Referendum – or at least so much of the thought process as is messaged to the public – is that an appointed Assessor depoliticizes the office, permitting this overseer of the assessment process (as sordid as it is) to do his or her job without having to engage in the customary, and, when it comes to property taxes, always derisive, electioneering.
Opponents of the Assessor-by-appointment argue, with more than nominal merit, that removing the public – whose very property is being taxed through the Assessor’s office – from the equation, chips away at John Q’s right to redress tax grievances, if for no other reason than the Assessor, no longer subject to the whim of the popular vote, would become less responsive to public representation [read as, “We’re being property-taxed to death”], and wholly beholden to the one making the appointment [read as, the Nassau County Executive]. Then again, taxation without representation has become little more than mere cliché, hasn’t it?
Those who favor appointment of the Assessor over election say that not only will the position become less political, but with the elimination of the Board of Assessors, there would be an annual cost-saving of some $250,000. [We’ll never see a penny of that, of course, but, somewhere, the books will reflect – and the County Exec will boast – a savings to the taxpayers.]
Frankly – and we’ve said this before – its not the Assessor that’s the problem, or even how he lands in office. It’s the assessment.
With a complex and convoluted process for calculating the assessment that makes the State’s maze of school aid formulae look like a game of tiddly-winks, we’ve ended up with a system that, at best, distorts home values, and, at worst, systematically robs homeowners of their ability to live in their own homes.
“Fair” is not a word that comes to mind when one discusses the property tax or its assessment, the onerous burden placed squarely upon the shoulders of homeowners, including those who, having bought into the American dream for less than they now pay every year in property taxes, are being taxed into the poorhouse (where at least they’d get “a cot and 3 hot”).
We talk about scraping the assessment system, perhaps in favor of a more equitable local income tax (Shhh. Don’t say that. Someone may accuse us of wanting to “spread the wealth”). We have even had State commissions and local study groups visit the issue, and its component parts, be they related to local government “efficiency” (gag us with a spoon) or a property tax “cap” (not a reduction; just a cap), with reports that praise the virtues of cost-cutting and consolidation, all the while urging across-the-board “reform.” [We suggest the Governor empanel a Blue Ribbon commission to study the meaning of the word “reform.” Then watch for a final report to which all conformist non-reformers can sign on to!]
But we digress. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. The Referendum.
Whether appointing is any less – or more – political than electing is one for the ages. Are appointed judges, for instance, less political than elected judges? Or is it just the opposite?
And where that appointment must be confirmed by one of the most politicized and polarized bodies in New York, the Nassau County Legislature, could the outcome be characterized as anything but political?
What we are looking for, we are reminded, is transparency and, above all, accountability, from those who govern us, right? Or does the mere appearance of transparency and accountability suffice?
True, the electorate has been dumbed-down over the years, falling prey to campaign small talk that labels, libels, and contorts, but even Joe-The-Plumber can figure out that, in a democracy, elected trumps appointed – and where we elect the wrong person for the job, its our own fault, not the product of a back-room deal or the machinations of a legislature that bickers over minutia and lets die in committee the big stuff.
As you may recall, these guys couldn’t even agree on the appointment of a Poet Laureate for Nassau County. Perhaps, next time around, we should simply elect one!
- - -
From the League of Women Voters of Nassau County:
Making the Nassau County Assessor an Appointed Position with
Educational and Professional Qualifications Form of Referendum:
SHALL NASSAU COUNTY LOCAL LAW NO. 7 -2008, ENTITLED "A Local Law to amend the County Government Law, in relation to the organization of the Department of Assessment and the appointment and duties of the Assessor," abolishing the County Board of Assessors and replacing the county-wide elected Chair of the Board of Assessors with an Assessor, who would be appointed by the County Executive, subject to confirmation by the County Legislature, for a term of three years and who would be required to meet standards of education and professional experience. BE APPROVED?
Proposed Abstract
This referendum seeks voter approval of a local law to amend the Nassau County Charter, in relation to the organization of the Department of Assessment and the appointment and duties of the Assessor.
The law brings Nassau County in line with most other jurisdictions throughout the State by providing for a single appointed professional County Assessor to serve as the head of the County Department of Assessment. The Charter amendment would abolish the County Board of Assessors and replace the county-wide elected Chair of the Board of Assessors with an Assessor, appointed to a three year term of office by the County Executive, subject to confirmation by the County Legislature, and required to meet professional standards of education and experience and to obtain certification as a New York State certified assessor within three years of beginning his or her initial term of office.
In addition, the proposed law amends former Charter § 607 (entitled "Correction of roll: extension of taxes") to delete obsolete language that provided for the hearing of complaints from property owners. Since the provision is inconsistent with subsequently enacted sections of State law, it has not been used for many years.
The law would become effective on January 1, 2009.
Pro:
Those who favor the referendum say it will take politics out of the Assessor’s position. There would no longer be a need for the candidate to raise money and run a political campaign, and the Assessor would not be identified with a particular party. The Assessor would have to meet professional educational and experiential requirements, thereby assuring knowledge and experience with the job. This referendum would bring Nassau County in conformity with most of the rest of the counties, 85% of which have professional Assessors.
Con:
Those against the referendum say that it robs Nassau County residents of their constitutional right of representation and their right to vote for a policy-making government official. They say that it would effectively eliminate the people’s choice and hand it over to the County Executive; that this law quashes the voices of all 1.3 million Nassau County residents. The key factor is accountability. We should leave the choice in the hands of the taxpaying voters, who should retain their right to select and elect the County Tax Assessor.
Next Tuesday, November 4th, Nassau County residents will go to the polls to elect a president, members of Congress, and State Legislators, among sundry other office holders, from judges to town council members.
Also on the ballot is a Referendum which, if passed, would replace the now-elected (for a 6-year term) Chairman of the County Board of Assessors (commonly known and often misidentified as “the Assessor”) with an appointed (for a 3-year term) Assessor, hand-chosen by the County Executive, and confirmed by the Nassau County Legislature.
The theory behind the Referendum – or at least so much of the thought process as is messaged to the public – is that an appointed Assessor depoliticizes the office, permitting this overseer of the assessment process (as sordid as it is) to do his or her job without having to engage in the customary, and, when it comes to property taxes, always derisive, electioneering.
Opponents of the Assessor-by-appointment argue, with more than nominal merit, that removing the public – whose very property is being taxed through the Assessor’s office – from the equation, chips away at John Q’s right to redress tax grievances, if for no other reason than the Assessor, no longer subject to the whim of the popular vote, would become less responsive to public representation [read as, “We’re being property-taxed to death”], and wholly beholden to the one making the appointment [read as, the Nassau County Executive]. Then again, taxation without representation has become little more than mere cliché, hasn’t it?
Those who favor appointment of the Assessor over election say that not only will the position become less political, but with the elimination of the Board of Assessors, there would be an annual cost-saving of some $250,000. [We’ll never see a penny of that, of course, but, somewhere, the books will reflect – and the County Exec will boast – a savings to the taxpayers.]
Frankly – and we’ve said this before – its not the Assessor that’s the problem, or even how he lands in office. It’s the assessment.
With a complex and convoluted process for calculating the assessment that makes the State’s maze of school aid formulae look like a game of tiddly-winks, we’ve ended up with a system that, at best, distorts home values, and, at worst, systematically robs homeowners of their ability to live in their own homes.
“Fair” is not a word that comes to mind when one discusses the property tax or its assessment, the onerous burden placed squarely upon the shoulders of homeowners, including those who, having bought into the American dream for less than they now pay every year in property taxes, are being taxed into the poorhouse (where at least they’d get “a cot and 3 hot”).
We talk about scraping the assessment system, perhaps in favor of a more equitable local income tax (Shhh. Don’t say that. Someone may accuse us of wanting to “spread the wealth”). We have even had State commissions and local study groups visit the issue, and its component parts, be they related to local government “efficiency” (gag us with a spoon) or a property tax “cap” (not a reduction; just a cap), with reports that praise the virtues of cost-cutting and consolidation, all the while urging across-the-board “reform.” [We suggest the Governor empanel a Blue Ribbon commission to study the meaning of the word “reform.” Then watch for a final report to which all conformist non-reformers can sign on to!]
But we digress. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. The Referendum.
Whether appointing is any less – or more – political than electing is one for the ages. Are appointed judges, for instance, less political than elected judges? Or is it just the opposite?
And where that appointment must be confirmed by one of the most politicized and polarized bodies in New York, the Nassau County Legislature, could the outcome be characterized as anything but political?
What we are looking for, we are reminded, is transparency and, above all, accountability, from those who govern us, right? Or does the mere appearance of transparency and accountability suffice?
True, the electorate has been dumbed-down over the years, falling prey to campaign small talk that labels, libels, and contorts, but even Joe-The-Plumber can figure out that, in a democracy, elected trumps appointed – and where we elect the wrong person for the job, its our own fault, not the product of a back-room deal or the machinations of a legislature that bickers over minutia and lets die in committee the big stuff.
As you may recall, these guys couldn’t even agree on the appointment of a Poet Laureate for Nassau County. Perhaps, next time around, we should simply elect one!
- - -
From the League of Women Voters of Nassau County:
Making the Nassau County Assessor an Appointed Position with
Educational and Professional Qualifications Form of Referendum:
SHALL NASSAU COUNTY LOCAL LAW NO. 7 -2008, ENTITLED "A Local Law to amend the County Government Law, in relation to the organization of the Department of Assessment and the appointment and duties of the Assessor," abolishing the County Board of Assessors and replacing the county-wide elected Chair of the Board of Assessors with an Assessor, who would be appointed by the County Executive, subject to confirmation by the County Legislature, for a term of three years and who would be required to meet standards of education and professional experience. BE APPROVED?
Proposed Abstract
This referendum seeks voter approval of a local law to amend the Nassau County Charter, in relation to the organization of the Department of Assessment and the appointment and duties of the Assessor.
The law brings Nassau County in line with most other jurisdictions throughout the State by providing for a single appointed professional County Assessor to serve as the head of the County Department of Assessment. The Charter amendment would abolish the County Board of Assessors and replace the county-wide elected Chair of the Board of Assessors with an Assessor, appointed to a three year term of office by the County Executive, subject to confirmation by the County Legislature, and required to meet professional standards of education and experience and to obtain certification as a New York State certified assessor within three years of beginning his or her initial term of office.
In addition, the proposed law amends former Charter § 607 (entitled "Correction of roll: extension of taxes") to delete obsolete language that provided for the hearing of complaints from property owners. Since the provision is inconsistent with subsequently enacted sections of State law, it has not been used for many years.
The law would become effective on January 1, 2009.
Pro:
Those who favor the referendum say it will take politics out of the Assessor’s position. There would no longer be a need for the candidate to raise money and run a political campaign, and the Assessor would not be identified with a particular party. The Assessor would have to meet professional educational and experiential requirements, thereby assuring knowledge and experience with the job. This referendum would bring Nassau County in conformity with most of the rest of the counties, 85% of which have professional Assessors.
Con:
Those against the referendum say that it robs Nassau County residents of their constitutional right of representation and their right to vote for a policy-making government official. They say that it would effectively eliminate the people’s choice and hand it over to the County Executive; that this law quashes the voices of all 1.3 million Nassau County residents. The key factor is accountability. We should leave the choice in the hands of the taxpaying voters, who should retain their right to select and elect the County Tax Assessor.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Its The Property Tax, Stupid
Or Was That The Stupid Property Tax?
The NYS Commission on Property Tax Reform held its first (and perhaps last) public hearing on Long Island.
Hearing, yes, but are they listening?
Among those testifying, Nassau County Assessor Harvey Levinson, who again proposed replacing (not supplementing) the regressive school property tax (based solely on the market value of one's real estate) with a progressive income tax (based on one's ability to pay).
Sticking to the plan first aired before the public in 2005, Levinson suggested a local (county) income tax in the place of the school portion of the property tax, a proposal that has met with mounting resistence, both from elected officials and John Q.
School funding by way of an income tax would, of course, cure a multitude of ills, not the least of which is relieving homeowners who are house rich but cash/income poor owing from the onerous financial burden imposed by the property tax.
Further, an income tax would capture both homeowners and renters (legal and illegal), as well as business and commercial entities (provided they pay income taxes) that have not, in recent years, borne their fair share of the school property tax.
Financing public education through an income tax would not only create a more equitable means of levy -- those who have the financial wherewithal shouldering more of the cost than the have nots (generally, seniors, college grads, young workforce, and, of late, the struggling middle class) -- it would also enable (and must envision) a more equitable across the board distribution of monies to local school districts, ending, once and for all, the upstate/downstate disparity.
Fund our schools through an income tax -- and make that a supplement to the existing NYS income tax, not a new local/county income tax -- and you eliminate the hand in one pocket while picking the other of STAR, dramatically reducing -- perhaps by as much as several thousand dollars per household -- a recurring and ever-increasing expense of homeownership, while still preserving the tax deduction (this time for income taxes rather than real estate taxes).
At the same time, administrative expenses,bureaucratic red tape, and the astronomical costs related to maintaining a property tax based system -- from assessment review to the tracking and mailing of rebate checks -- are either greatly reduced or, better still, eliminated altogether.
An income tax to take the place of the school property tax? Commission Chair, Tom Suozzi, calls it a "non-starter."
Well, we say, "start." Start to think about an income tax, logically rather than by your gut. Start to crunch the numbers, both short term and long. Start to reduce the real cost of homeownership, and shift the burden from value of the home to ability to pay.
It makes sense, and would be a win-win for anyone who has been paying that hefty property tax bill, year in and year out.
- - -
Panel hears plea for income tax
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The Nassau County tax assessor urged a state panel Wednesday to eliminate residential property taxes to fund schools -- and replace them with a local income tax.
Assessor Harvey Levinson told the panel, which is examining ways to reduce the property tax burden, that the current system of property taxation is inherently unfair and can not be fixed.
"The assessed value of a home is not an indicator of a family's ability to pay school taxes," Levinson said at a meeting of the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief Wednesday in Hauppauge.
William Lindsay, presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, also suggested implementing an income tax to replace property taxes -- but recommended it be a surcharge on the state income tax, rather than on local income.
The chairman of the commission, Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, had previously dismissed the potential for income tax to replace property taxes as a "non-starter." However, he gave no indication Wednesday about which way he might lean, asking Levinson to present the panel with more information on the idea.
Earlier in the meeting, E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, suggested a cap on property taxes as a way of reining in their growth.McMahon said the best model to follow was in Massachusetts, where Proposition 2 1/2 is working relatively well. "There were not Draconian impacts," McMahon said.
The hearing was the third of eight scheduled around New York before the commission makes its recommendations to Gov. Eliot Spitzer in mid-May.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
The NYS Commission on Property Tax Reform held its first (and perhaps last) public hearing on Long Island.
Hearing, yes, but are they listening?
Among those testifying, Nassau County Assessor Harvey Levinson, who again proposed replacing (not supplementing) the regressive school property tax (based solely on the market value of one's real estate) with a progressive income tax (based on one's ability to pay).
Sticking to the plan first aired before the public in 2005, Levinson suggested a local (county) income tax in the place of the school portion of the property tax, a proposal that has met with mounting resistence, both from elected officials and John Q.
School funding by way of an income tax would, of course, cure a multitude of ills, not the least of which is relieving homeowners who are house rich but cash/income poor owing from the onerous financial burden imposed by the property tax.
Further, an income tax would capture both homeowners and renters (legal and illegal), as well as business and commercial entities (provided they pay income taxes) that have not, in recent years, borne their fair share of the school property tax.
Financing public education through an income tax would not only create a more equitable means of levy -- those who have the financial wherewithal shouldering more of the cost than the have nots (generally, seniors, college grads, young workforce, and, of late, the struggling middle class) -- it would also enable (and must envision) a more equitable across the board distribution of monies to local school districts, ending, once and for all, the upstate/downstate disparity.
Fund our schools through an income tax -- and make that a supplement to the existing NYS income tax, not a new local/county income tax -- and you eliminate the hand in one pocket while picking the other of STAR, dramatically reducing -- perhaps by as much as several thousand dollars per household -- a recurring and ever-increasing expense of homeownership, while still preserving the tax deduction (this time for income taxes rather than real estate taxes).
At the same time, administrative expenses,bureaucratic red tape, and the astronomical costs related to maintaining a property tax based system -- from assessment review to the tracking and mailing of rebate checks -- are either greatly reduced or, better still, eliminated altogether.
An income tax to take the place of the school property tax? Commission Chair, Tom Suozzi, calls it a "non-starter."
Well, we say, "start." Start to think about an income tax, logically rather than by your gut. Start to crunch the numbers, both short term and long. Start to reduce the real cost of homeownership, and shift the burden from value of the home to ability to pay.
It makes sense, and would be a win-win for anyone who has been paying that hefty property tax bill, year in and year out.
- - -
Panel hears plea for income tax
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The Nassau County tax assessor urged a state panel Wednesday to eliminate residential property taxes to fund schools -- and replace them with a local income tax.
Assessor Harvey Levinson told the panel, which is examining ways to reduce the property tax burden, that the current system of property taxation is inherently unfair and can not be fixed.
"The assessed value of a home is not an indicator of a family's ability to pay school taxes," Levinson said at a meeting of the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief Wednesday in Hauppauge.
William Lindsay, presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, also suggested implementing an income tax to replace property taxes -- but recommended it be a surcharge on the state income tax, rather than on local income.
The chairman of the commission, Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, had previously dismissed the potential for income tax to replace property taxes as a "non-starter." However, he gave no indication Wednesday about which way he might lean, asking Levinson to present the panel with more information on the idea.
Earlier in the meeting, E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, suggested a cap on property taxes as a way of reining in their growth.McMahon said the best model to follow was in Massachusetts, where Proposition 2 1/2 is working relatively well. "There were not Draconian impacts," McMahon said.
The hearing was the third of eight scheduled around New York before the commission makes its recommendations to Gov. Eliot Spitzer in mid-May.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Case Against A Property Tax Cap
Its The Spending, Stupid (And The Paucity Of State Aid)
All the talk -- from Spitzer to Suozzi, and every talking-head in between -- of capping school district taxes as a means of controlling tax hikes inevitably leads us (and all people of reason and intelligence, we hope) to the conclusion that a cap will do absolutely nothing to lower property taxes (even the potential for containment is dubious), let alone control the spending at the district level that lights that all too short fuse under the property tax skyrocket.
Caps, where they have been imposed, haven't worked out very well, either for the taxpayers or the school districts.
Even spending less, when much of the school district costs are fixed, contractual, or otherwise mandated (yet unfunded), may not be achievable barring cuts to the essential foundations of a sound education.
The solutions (some of which may well cause a hard swallow, particularly among State Legislators - in an election year, no less) must include so-called "circuit-breaker" legislation, which limits not the property tax itself, but rather, what the taxpayer has to pay, coupled with an across the board replacement of the regressive school property tax with (now hold your ears) a progressive income tax at the State -- not local -- level. [Equitable and adequate State Aid to public schools is essential in order to maintain quality education, and the State income tax as a means to fund the heretofore unfunded and underfunded is the lynchpin.]
Of course, getting State Legislators to so much as talk about -- let alone take action on -- an increase in income taxes is tantamount to campaigning for the other guy on a "read my lips" platform.
Then again, someone, somewhere, in some position of authority has to take a stand and bite that bullet, as the homeowner/taxpayer has had to do for far too long.
The income tax -- one of those inevitables nobody likes, and everybody wants to cut -- would provide the necessary stream of monies to finance public education, posing far less of a burden than the onerous, property-based tax.
And shifting the burden from localities to the State, from cash-strapped homeowners to all who pay income tax, is not only fundamentally fair, it is essential to maintaining schools of excellence, sustaining the growth of the local economy, and preventing property owners from fleeing New York, taking their wallets and investments with them.
Removing the property tax from the school funding equation should be a given. Capping the tax, however, is not only treating the symptom rather than curing the disease, it is akin to performing open-heart surgery with a chain saw.
Let not the operation be a success and the patient (be he student or taxpayer) wind up dead on the table.
If we are truly going for property tax "reform," let's do it right from the get go.
- - -
From The Poughkeepsie Journal:
Valley Views: Property tax cap wouldn't be much help
By Robert McKeon
A choir of elected officials from all branches of state government have begun harmonizing a tune in the property tax reform movement - and it's not one we will enjoy if it gets produced.
Last week, Gov. Eliot Spitzer added his voice by suggesting he will propose "caps."
Unfortunately, caps almost always wreak havoc on educational performance and deliver no relief to the great many who are financially strapped. A little background on what lawmakers are auditioning around the valley:
- The Property Taxpayer Protection Act (A8775) is a bill local Assembly Republican members are headlining on their election-year tour. The legislation would "cap" the annual tax levy increase to the inflation rate or 4 percent, whichever is lower. John Whiteley of the tri-county (Warren, Washington and Essex) tax reform group points out, "Districts don't pay taxes, people do. It doesn't mean everybody will be capped at that rate - it's all based on individual assessments." Overburdened taxpayers would see higher property taxes. My local assemblyman claims it will provide "breathing room." For politicians perhaps, but not for taxpayers.
-History tells us not to buy a ticket to this show. Whether it's California's Proposition 13 or Massachusetts Proposition 21/2, states that enact "caps" show declines in education - sometimes dramatic. Passed in 1980, Proposition 21/2 (the levy increase limit) had some troubling opening performances; including an immediate 12 percent cut in teaching staff. No coincidence that the governor referred to the cap as a "blunt instrument." With overrides requiring a two-thirds voter referendum, only the wealthiest districts will thrive, further dividing New Yorkers by economic class. Studies confirmed alarming disparity in educational results according to the community's ability to override, and it is incredibly difficult to turn around a school district once it goes downhill.
-The notion that any one entity can control spending (and at the district level especially) continues to frustrate those who study educational funding. The federal and state governments determine how much they will contribute to the equation. Local school districts have no say. Nor can they dictate the Wall Street performance of union pension funds. A cap merely means the boiling stew will overflow and create additional "messes" to be cleaned up later.
-State senators are touring with a few catchy songs under their belt. Legislative bills include ridding us of unfunded mandates and a doubling or better of the infamous STAR. Gioia Shebar of the Ulster County-based Tax Nightmare group rightly calls that opera "Franken-STAR" after the monster of a misguided program that it has become. Our state senator told a captive audience his chamber passed a bill to phase out property tax for primary homeowners over five years. The reformation hymn at last. When it came time to disclose where the nearly $10 billion of replacement funding would be coming from, he developed a sudden case of laryngitis.
-If they want better reviews, then they need to play the people's kind of music. Any "cap" should be on the amount of money the taxpayer has to contribute. A better opening act might be to adopt circuit-breaker legislation that would limit what an individual would be required to pay, such as the Galef/Little bill (A1575/S1053). It calls for homeowners to be reimbursed for school taxes that exceed a certain percentage of their income. Then they will be playing our song - a direct relationship between the income we earn and the taxes we pay. Price tag - around $3 billion with some important modifications. The next step to an income-based system would be a much smaller leap.
Spitzer hasn't yet released what his caps look like. Let's hope he proposes something that won't injure one of the most important "services" a high-paying employer looks for - good schools. The only cap our member groups are advocating for are the ones that go with a matching gown.
Robert McKeon is an executive committee member of the New York State Coalition for Property Tax Reform and is the director of The Tax Reform Effort of Northern Dutchess (TREND). Web site: www.trendny.org
All the talk -- from Spitzer to Suozzi, and every talking-head in between -- of capping school district taxes as a means of controlling tax hikes inevitably leads us (and all people of reason and intelligence, we hope) to the conclusion that a cap will do absolutely nothing to lower property taxes (even the potential for containment is dubious), let alone control the spending at the district level that lights that all too short fuse under the property tax skyrocket.
Caps, where they have been imposed, haven't worked out very well, either for the taxpayers or the school districts.
Even spending less, when much of the school district costs are fixed, contractual, or otherwise mandated (yet unfunded), may not be achievable barring cuts to the essential foundations of a sound education.
The solutions (some of which may well cause a hard swallow, particularly among State Legislators - in an election year, no less) must include so-called "circuit-breaker" legislation, which limits not the property tax itself, but rather, what the taxpayer has to pay, coupled with an across the board replacement of the regressive school property tax with (now hold your ears) a progressive income tax at the State -- not local -- level. [Equitable and adequate State Aid to public schools is essential in order to maintain quality education, and the State income tax as a means to fund the heretofore unfunded and underfunded is the lynchpin.]
Of course, getting State Legislators to so much as talk about -- let alone take action on -- an increase in income taxes is tantamount to campaigning for the other guy on a "read my lips" platform.
Then again, someone, somewhere, in some position of authority has to take a stand and bite that bullet, as the homeowner/taxpayer has had to do for far too long.
The income tax -- one of those inevitables nobody likes, and everybody wants to cut -- would provide the necessary stream of monies to finance public education, posing far less of a burden than the onerous, property-based tax.
And shifting the burden from localities to the State, from cash-strapped homeowners to all who pay income tax, is not only fundamentally fair, it is essential to maintaining schools of excellence, sustaining the growth of the local economy, and preventing property owners from fleeing New York, taking their wallets and investments with them.
Removing the property tax from the school funding equation should be a given. Capping the tax, however, is not only treating the symptom rather than curing the disease, it is akin to performing open-heart surgery with a chain saw.
Let not the operation be a success and the patient (be he student or taxpayer) wind up dead on the table.
If we are truly going for property tax "reform," let's do it right from the get go.
- - -
From The Poughkeepsie Journal:
Valley Views: Property tax cap wouldn't be much help
By Robert McKeon
A choir of elected officials from all branches of state government have begun harmonizing a tune in the property tax reform movement - and it's not one we will enjoy if it gets produced.
Last week, Gov. Eliot Spitzer added his voice by suggesting he will propose "caps."
Unfortunately, caps almost always wreak havoc on educational performance and deliver no relief to the great many who are financially strapped. A little background on what lawmakers are auditioning around the valley:
- The Property Taxpayer Protection Act (A8775) is a bill local Assembly Republican members are headlining on their election-year tour. The legislation would "cap" the annual tax levy increase to the inflation rate or 4 percent, whichever is lower. John Whiteley of the tri-county (Warren, Washington and Essex) tax reform group points out, "Districts don't pay taxes, people do. It doesn't mean everybody will be capped at that rate - it's all based on individual assessments." Overburdened taxpayers would see higher property taxes. My local assemblyman claims it will provide "breathing room." For politicians perhaps, but not for taxpayers.
-History tells us not to buy a ticket to this show. Whether it's California's Proposition 13 or Massachusetts Proposition 21/2, states that enact "caps" show declines in education - sometimes dramatic. Passed in 1980, Proposition 21/2 (the levy increase limit) had some troubling opening performances; including an immediate 12 percent cut in teaching staff. No coincidence that the governor referred to the cap as a "blunt instrument." With overrides requiring a two-thirds voter referendum, only the wealthiest districts will thrive, further dividing New Yorkers by economic class. Studies confirmed alarming disparity in educational results according to the community's ability to override, and it is incredibly difficult to turn around a school district once it goes downhill.
-The notion that any one entity can control spending (and at the district level especially) continues to frustrate those who study educational funding. The federal and state governments determine how much they will contribute to the equation. Local school districts have no say. Nor can they dictate the Wall Street performance of union pension funds. A cap merely means the boiling stew will overflow and create additional "messes" to be cleaned up later.
-State senators are touring with a few catchy songs under their belt. Legislative bills include ridding us of unfunded mandates and a doubling or better of the infamous STAR. Gioia Shebar of the Ulster County-based Tax Nightmare group rightly calls that opera "Franken-STAR" after the monster of a misguided program that it has become. Our state senator told a captive audience his chamber passed a bill to phase out property tax for primary homeowners over five years. The reformation hymn at last. When it came time to disclose where the nearly $10 billion of replacement funding would be coming from, he developed a sudden case of laryngitis.
-If they want better reviews, then they need to play the people's kind of music. Any "cap" should be on the amount of money the taxpayer has to contribute. A better opening act might be to adopt circuit-breaker legislation that would limit what an individual would be required to pay, such as the Galef/Little bill (A1575/S1053). It calls for homeowners to be reimbursed for school taxes that exceed a certain percentage of their income. Then they will be playing our song - a direct relationship between the income we earn and the taxes we pay. Price tag - around $3 billion with some important modifications. The next step to an income-based system would be a much smaller leap.
Spitzer hasn't yet released what his caps look like. Let's hope he proposes something that won't injure one of the most important "services" a high-paying employer looks for - good schools. The only cap our member groups are advocating for are the ones that go with a matching gown.
Robert McKeon is an executive committee member of the New York State Coalition for Property Tax Reform and is the director of The Tax Reform Effort of Northern Dutchess (TREND). Web site: www.trendny.org
Friday, February 09, 2007
New Jersey Slashes Property Taxes By Up To 20%
While New York Continues To Wish Upon A Faltering STAR
The Garden State, heretofore the state with the highest property tax burden, may soon leave New York in its dust -- with the unchallenged an unexalted title of highest property tax burden in the nation.
The New Jersey Legislature has just passed a series of measures, expected to be signed into law by Governor Corzine, designed to actually lower homeowners' property tax bills, with real reductions of up to 20%. There will also be a 4% cap on annual increases.
New York, of course, continues to lag behind in effectively cutting property taxes -- picking up the rear, pooper scooper in hand, with its staunch adherence to the principles of STAR (School Tax Relief) progam, better known as put money in one pocket, while taking even more out of the other.
Under the budget recommended to the Legislature by Governor Eliot Spitzer, New Yorkers would spell relief, S-T-A-R (as in School Taxes Are Ridiculous).
Homeowners' would see an increase in their STAR credit on the school property tax bill -- which, for a Suffolk County homeowner with an income of $80,000, would translate, roughly, into a credit of $760 per year.
Maybe $760 saved on a tax bill of $8000 or more is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe not. The fact remains that what the homeowner gets as a credit for school taxes, the school district must make up for elsewhere.
No problem. The State simply kicks in more money as aid to education, right?
Wrong. The State antes up a little more -- a relative pittance for most Long Island districts -- and the school districts, still faced with unfunded mandates from Albany and Washington, along with contractual expenses to which they are legally bound, is left to raise the tax rate.
An increase in the tax rate effectively raises the school property tax, and guess who has to open their wallets to bay the bill?
You are so smart! Homeowners -- credit in one hand, writing that check with the other.
Your net-net on this one? Zero. Nada. Naught. The big goose egg.
Worse still, when State Aid shortfalls are calculated in and added to rising costs for buses, oil, electricity, insurance, and even paper, the typical homeowner may wind up paying MORE school property taxes after the STAR credit than she did before.
Unless the State Aid formula, which favors upstate districts and short-changes Long Island [by the tune of somewhere in the nighborhood of 84% aid to upstate, and 16% to Long Island], is made more equitable, mandates are required to be funded by those who mandate them, and income tax dollars are returned to the communities and municipalities from whence they came, homeowners in these parts will continue to get a credit from Peter to pay, er, ah, Peter and Paul.
Think about it, Long Islanders: Out of every dollar you pay in income taxes to Albany (out of which pot comes STAR proceeds to local school districts), only 25 cents comes back home to work for you. Not much return on your investment, is it?
And when you figure that a good 95% of school district budgets are made up of costs that are either mandated (but not funded), or obligatory (as in transportation, insurance, contract performance), there is little room to play with numbers, and even less room to cut.
Why, even homeowners whose school districts on austerity don't get a break, the savings meager, at best, if at all, and the impact upon community, devastating.
There has to be a better way. There is.
The Constitution of the State of New York requires the State to provide every child with an education. A FREE education, at that! [The Constitution's words, not ours. Article XI, Section 1.]
That would seem to leave little room for Albany to wiggle out of its obligation to fully fund our public schools.
END THE DISPARITY IN AID TO EDUCATION. If a school district in the Thousand Islands region has 85% of its budget covered through State Aid, equity, fairness, and the State Constitution require Albany to give no less of a percentage in aid to Long Island's public schools.
ELIMINATE ALL UNFUNDED MANDATES. If Washington (No Child Left Behind) and Albany insist on programs, testing, enrichment, or providing busing out of the district for private school students, they must pay the price. Unfunded mandates are choking our schools, limiting the ability and resources necessary to teach, and strangling the homeowner.
CHARTER A COURSE TO EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, NOT CHARTER SCHOOLS. If our public schools are failing, help 'em out. Fix the problems. Find the solutions. Don't simply cut and run. [That goes for parents as well as government]. Let's not spend the public's money to finance a parallel system of private schools, this in the vain hope that these Charter schools will somehow outperform and raise the standard. Give public schools the tools, the resources, and the chance, and they, too, will shine!
AX THE TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT VOUCHERS. A tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools is merely a backdoor method of siphoning public money away from our public schools. Public schools are for everyone -- choose to go, or not. Private schools are just that, private. You go, you pay. Tax dollars belong in the public domain, and not in the hands of private or parochial institutions and the parents who patronize them.
CONSOLIDATE AND ELIMINATE. Long Island doesn't need, and Long Islanders shouldn't have to pay for, 126 seperate and distinct school districts. Community schools (along with their football and lacrosse teams) can keep their local identities, while still shedding the burden of exhorbitent costs necessary to operate a school district. With the average salary for district Superintendent's at $200,000 per annum, and rising (that's an average of $25.2 million in chief administrator salaries alone), consider the savings if having one Superintendent for Nassau and another for Suffolk, paring down local administration and front office staff. Merge offices, consolidate services, eliminate redundancy and waste, and put the savings into a reduction of the school property tax.
END DOUBLE-DIPPING INTO STATE PENSIONS. The practice of State and municipal employees collecting more than a single State pension (arising from service under multiple titles or by reason of holding more than one government position -- sometimes simultaneously) is an extravegance strapped New Yorkers can no longer afford to pay for.
Just a few ideas [yes, we have many], all of which would save New York taxpayers millions, while improving the prospects for our public schools.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the Governor and State Legislators (or should we say, with some familiarity with the process, "Eliot, Shelly, and Joe?") to act and react, all we can do is look longingly across the Hudson to New Jersey, and keep on wishing on that distant, faint, and all too unreachable STAR.
- - -
We like Suffolk County Exec, Steve Levy's, idea for a credit card that gives you property tax credits rather than frequent flyer miles or cash back.
Here's an idea: For every dollar you charge to the card, the State will give a dollar in State Aid to your school district.
And a catchy slogan, too: The NY Property Tax Credit Card -- Don't Let Them Tax Your Home Without It!
---
LI eyes NJ tax cut with envy
By Dave Marcus
Newsday Staff Writer
Property taxes being slashed?
William Hill, a retired real estate broker in West Babylon, read the news with a mixture of excitement and disbelief yesterday. It was a good development, he felt, but he noted a couple of problems. First, this was legislation in New Jersey, not New York. And the plan seemed suspiciously vague.
"I think it's wonderful, but I don't know where communities are going to make up the money," said Hill, 69, president of the West Babylon Taxpayers Association.
Economists and policy analysts across Long Island and New York City shared Hill's very cautious enthusiasm. New Jersey and New York are the states with the highest property taxes and some of the highest school spending in the country, and taxpayers are demanding relief. So when New Jersey sneezes, New York checks its own temperature. And when New Jersey moves to lower property taxes, New York gets inspired.
"That a state in the metro region is moving to cut taxes is certainly encouraging," said Rich Guardino, dean of Hofstra University's Center for Suburban Studies. "Long Islanders are suffering from such an onerous tax burden that relief in any form would be welcome."
The New Jersey plan offers many homeowners a 20 percent property tax cut. Wealthier homeowners get less, and families earning more than $250,000 don't get a break. The legislation, approved by both Democrats and Republicans, is being studied by Gov. Jon Corzine.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is preparing to push his own three-year, $6-billion middle-class property tax relief. Building on the complex School Tax Relief program, called STAR, it offers the greatest breaks to the middle class. In Suffolk, for instance, families earning up to $80,000 would get an average break of just more than $760.
"The New York system needs a lot of improvement," said Frank Mauro, head of the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute.
He noted that the plans have several key differences. New Jersey covers renters; New York wouldn't. New Jersey is reducing all property taxes; New York wants to reduce school taxes. New Jersey has a 4 percent cap on raising tax levies; New York wouldn't.
Mauro said the cap will hurt poorer districts in the city and on Long Island. Conservatives, though, said the cap is necessary. But they are skeptical of tax relief plans in New Jersey and New York because they say the states are simply switching money from one pot to another.
"When you reduce the tax price to the homeowner, it becomes easier for the school district to raise taxes faster to make up for it," said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy.
In West Babylon, Hill said he is all for any kind of tax relief, especially because he just received an $8,200 property tax bill himself. But having served on the school board for four years, he said politicians are being disingenuous. "Nobody is stopping and saying, 'Look, you have the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind. That's what really puts the burden on the taxpayers. '"
Hill has seen his grown children and their friends scatter to other states, most with lower taxes - though he does have one son in New Jersey. And he says it's getting very late for any kind of property tax relief in New York City and Long Island.
"Any of the people that I've spoken to are interested in going south. They'd just as soon live in nice weather and pay a hell of a lot less in taxes."
PROPERTY TAX PROPOSAL
Highlights of the New Jersey tax cut plan:
Cut property taxes by 20 percent for households earning up to $100,000 and 10 percent for households earning $250,000.Cap annual property tax increases at 4 percent.
Ask voters to consider merging towns.
Create a comptroller to investigate government spending.
Strip pensions from corrupt public officials.
Create county school superintendents with authority to veto school spending.
Bar newly elected or appointed officials from receiving taxpayer-paid pensions.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
The Garden State, heretofore the state with the highest property tax burden, may soon leave New York in its dust -- with the unchallenged an unexalted title of highest property tax burden in the nation.
The New Jersey Legislature has just passed a series of measures, expected to be signed into law by Governor Corzine, designed to actually lower homeowners' property tax bills, with real reductions of up to 20%. There will also be a 4% cap on annual increases.
New York, of course, continues to lag behind in effectively cutting property taxes -- picking up the rear, pooper scooper in hand, with its staunch adherence to the principles of STAR (School Tax Relief) progam, better known as put money in one pocket, while taking even more out of the other.
Under the budget recommended to the Legislature by Governor Eliot Spitzer, New Yorkers would spell relief, S-T-A-R (as in School Taxes Are Ridiculous).
Homeowners' would see an increase in their STAR credit on the school property tax bill -- which, for a Suffolk County homeowner with an income of $80,000, would translate, roughly, into a credit of $760 per year.
Maybe $760 saved on a tax bill of $8000 or more is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe not. The fact remains that what the homeowner gets as a credit for school taxes, the school district must make up for elsewhere.
No problem. The State simply kicks in more money as aid to education, right?
Wrong. The State antes up a little more -- a relative pittance for most Long Island districts -- and the school districts, still faced with unfunded mandates from Albany and Washington, along with contractual expenses to which they are legally bound, is left to raise the tax rate.
An increase in the tax rate effectively raises the school property tax, and guess who has to open their wallets to bay the bill?
You are so smart! Homeowners -- credit in one hand, writing that check with the other.
Your net-net on this one? Zero. Nada. Naught. The big goose egg.
Worse still, when State Aid shortfalls are calculated in and added to rising costs for buses, oil, electricity, insurance, and even paper, the typical homeowner may wind up paying MORE school property taxes after the STAR credit than she did before.
Unless the State Aid formula, which favors upstate districts and short-changes Long Island [by the tune of somewhere in the nighborhood of 84% aid to upstate, and 16% to Long Island], is made more equitable, mandates are required to be funded by those who mandate them, and income tax dollars are returned to the communities and municipalities from whence they came, homeowners in these parts will continue to get a credit from Peter to pay, er, ah, Peter and Paul.
Think about it, Long Islanders: Out of every dollar you pay in income taxes to Albany (out of which pot comes STAR proceeds to local school districts), only 25 cents comes back home to work for you. Not much return on your investment, is it?
And when you figure that a good 95% of school district budgets are made up of costs that are either mandated (but not funded), or obligatory (as in transportation, insurance, contract performance), there is little room to play with numbers, and even less room to cut.
Why, even homeowners whose school districts on austerity don't get a break, the savings meager, at best, if at all, and the impact upon community, devastating.
There has to be a better way. There is.
The Constitution of the State of New York requires the State to provide every child with an education. A FREE education, at that! [The Constitution's words, not ours. Article XI, Section 1.]
That would seem to leave little room for Albany to wiggle out of its obligation to fully fund our public schools.
END THE DISPARITY IN AID TO EDUCATION. If a school district in the Thousand Islands region has 85% of its budget covered through State Aid, equity, fairness, and the State Constitution require Albany to give no less of a percentage in aid to Long Island's public schools.
ELIMINATE ALL UNFUNDED MANDATES. If Washington (No Child Left Behind) and Albany insist on programs, testing, enrichment, or providing busing out of the district for private school students, they must pay the price. Unfunded mandates are choking our schools, limiting the ability and resources necessary to teach, and strangling the homeowner.
CHARTER A COURSE TO EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, NOT CHARTER SCHOOLS. If our public schools are failing, help 'em out. Fix the problems. Find the solutions. Don't simply cut and run. [That goes for parents as well as government]. Let's not spend the public's money to finance a parallel system of private schools, this in the vain hope that these Charter schools will somehow outperform and raise the standard. Give public schools the tools, the resources, and the chance, and they, too, will shine!
AX THE TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT VOUCHERS. A tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools is merely a backdoor method of siphoning public money away from our public schools. Public schools are for everyone -- choose to go, or not. Private schools are just that, private. You go, you pay. Tax dollars belong in the public domain, and not in the hands of private or parochial institutions and the parents who patronize them.
CONSOLIDATE AND ELIMINATE. Long Island doesn't need, and Long Islanders shouldn't have to pay for, 126 seperate and distinct school districts. Community schools (along with their football and lacrosse teams) can keep their local identities, while still shedding the burden of exhorbitent costs necessary to operate a school district. With the average salary for district Superintendent's at $200,000 per annum, and rising (that's an average of $25.2 million in chief administrator salaries alone), consider the savings if having one Superintendent for Nassau and another for Suffolk, paring down local administration and front office staff. Merge offices, consolidate services, eliminate redundancy and waste, and put the savings into a reduction of the school property tax.
END DOUBLE-DIPPING INTO STATE PENSIONS. The practice of State and municipal employees collecting more than a single State pension (arising from service under multiple titles or by reason of holding more than one government position -- sometimes simultaneously) is an extravegance strapped New Yorkers can no longer afford to pay for.
Just a few ideas [yes, we have many], all of which would save New York taxpayers millions, while improving the prospects for our public schools.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the Governor and State Legislators (or should we say, with some familiarity with the process, "Eliot, Shelly, and Joe?") to act and react, all we can do is look longingly across the Hudson to New Jersey, and keep on wishing on that distant, faint, and all too unreachable STAR.
- - -
We like Suffolk County Exec, Steve Levy's, idea for a credit card that gives you property tax credits rather than frequent flyer miles or cash back.
Here's an idea: For every dollar you charge to the card, the State will give a dollar in State Aid to your school district.
And a catchy slogan, too: The NY Property Tax Credit Card -- Don't Let Them Tax Your Home Without It!
---
LI eyes NJ tax cut with envy
By Dave Marcus
Newsday Staff Writer
Property taxes being slashed?
William Hill, a retired real estate broker in West Babylon, read the news with a mixture of excitement and disbelief yesterday. It was a good development, he felt, but he noted a couple of problems. First, this was legislation in New Jersey, not New York. And the plan seemed suspiciously vague.
"I think it's wonderful, but I don't know where communities are going to make up the money," said Hill, 69, president of the West Babylon Taxpayers Association.
Economists and policy analysts across Long Island and New York City shared Hill's very cautious enthusiasm. New Jersey and New York are the states with the highest property taxes and some of the highest school spending in the country, and taxpayers are demanding relief. So when New Jersey sneezes, New York checks its own temperature. And when New Jersey moves to lower property taxes, New York gets inspired.
"That a state in the metro region is moving to cut taxes is certainly encouraging," said Rich Guardino, dean of Hofstra University's Center for Suburban Studies. "Long Islanders are suffering from such an onerous tax burden that relief in any form would be welcome."
The New Jersey plan offers many homeowners a 20 percent property tax cut. Wealthier homeowners get less, and families earning more than $250,000 don't get a break. The legislation, approved by both Democrats and Republicans, is being studied by Gov. Jon Corzine.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is preparing to push his own three-year, $6-billion middle-class property tax relief. Building on the complex School Tax Relief program, called STAR, it offers the greatest breaks to the middle class. In Suffolk, for instance, families earning up to $80,000 would get an average break of just more than $760.
"The New York system needs a lot of improvement," said Frank Mauro, head of the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute.
He noted that the plans have several key differences. New Jersey covers renters; New York wouldn't. New Jersey is reducing all property taxes; New York wants to reduce school taxes. New Jersey has a 4 percent cap on raising tax levies; New York wouldn't.
Mauro said the cap will hurt poorer districts in the city and on Long Island. Conservatives, though, said the cap is necessary. But they are skeptical of tax relief plans in New Jersey and New York because they say the states are simply switching money from one pot to another.
"When you reduce the tax price to the homeowner, it becomes easier for the school district to raise taxes faster to make up for it," said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy.
In West Babylon, Hill said he is all for any kind of tax relief, especially because he just received an $8,200 property tax bill himself. But having served on the school board for four years, he said politicians are being disingenuous. "Nobody is stopping and saying, 'Look, you have the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind. That's what really puts the burden on the taxpayers. '"
Hill has seen his grown children and their friends scatter to other states, most with lower taxes - though he does have one son in New Jersey. And he says it's getting very late for any kind of property tax relief in New York City and Long Island.
"Any of the people that I've spoken to are interested in going south. They'd just as soon live in nice weather and pay a hell of a lot less in taxes."
PROPERTY TAX PROPOSAL
Highlights of the New Jersey tax cut plan:
Cut property taxes by 20 percent for households earning up to $100,000 and 10 percent for households earning $250,000.Cap annual property tax increases at 4 percent.
Ask voters to consider merging towns.
Create a comptroller to investigate government spending.
Strip pensions from corrupt public officials.
Create county school superintendents with authority to veto school spending.
Bar newly elected or appointed officials from receiving taxpayer-paid pensions.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Look Who's Talking High Taxes
Al D'Amato, in a Long Island Information Network blog post, opines on taxes, the forgotten middle class, and the dragon rearing its ugly head
A better spokesman for change to the status quo there couldn't be!
Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, Alphonse D'Amato:
Forgotten middle class needs new tax system
By Alfonse D'Amato
Twenty-five years ago, when I began my Senate career, the burning economic issue of the day was inflation in all its ugly manifestations, including sky-high interest rates that were crushing home owners. The forgotten middle class was being squeezed out of the housing market on Long Island by economic forces that threatened the very American ideal of home ownership. Yet with diligent leadership and prudent fiscal management the inflation dragon was slayed and home ownership soared on Long Island.
Today, a dragon is rearing its ugly head again. This time the middle class is being devoured by the enormous increases in property taxes on Long Island. It is not uncommon today for a family that was able to buy a house in the 1980s to find itself in the untenable situation of paying property taxes that dwarf their mortgage payments. A young family just starting out faces the twin demons of astronomical housing prices and stratospheric property taxes.
Now, the forgotten middle class is searching for leadership at all levels – federal, state, and local – to address the most basic of questions: how long will I be able to live in my house when property taxes are spiraling out of control? How did we come to this scary state and how can we get out of it? Here are some observations:
Local governments and school districts have incurred long-term obligations that are clearly unsustainable. Pension and health-care costs are threatening to roar out of control and saddle Long Islanders with a mountain of “unfunded liabilities.” One of the greatest urgencies is for municipalities and school districts to put the brakes on these runaway costs by requiring new hires to accept much more realistic pension and health-care benefits. The taxpaying public should not be asked to pay confiscatory levels of property taxes to support benefits for public employees that are more generous than those they have for themselves.
We must also realize that the inordinate dependence on property taxes to fund education is no longer defensible. A fairer system of taxation must be devised that bases school funding on the broader economic measurements of ability to pay instead of home values and property taxes. And these reforms should be tied to clear restraints on the possible future increases in levels of taxation on Long Island, so that we do not eventually price ourselves out of competition with the rest of suburbanized America.
Local governments and school districts must also face the responsibility to tighten their management and their spending to reflect the limits on taxpayers’ ability to pay. Recent audits of Long Island schools in particular have traced a troubling pattern of sloppy financial oversight, outright fraud and inattention to management practices that can save hard dollars without compromising their core educational mission.
If we do all these things to restrain the growth of property taxes on Long Island, we can eventually replicate the stunning recovery and growth that characterized our area in earlier trying fiscal times. Voters expect the best: uncompromised essential services, thoughtful management, and recognition that their ability to pay is not endless. They will surely punish politicians who fail to deliver a more equitable taxing structure for education and local government. But they will reward leadership, vision, and creativity with yet another burst of economic growth that will lift all Long Island into the forefront of America’s mighty store of prosperity and well being.
- - -
Is this Senator Alphonse D'Amato, icon of New York's Republican Party, suggesting that we replace the onerous property tax with "A fairer system of taxation must be devised that bases school funding on the broader economic measurements of ability to pay instead of home values...?" That sounds like an income tax to us, Al. [Please don't let your colleagues in the GOP hear such talk!]
And did we read Al correctly when he writes, "(voters) will surely punish politicians who fail to deliver a more equitable taxing structure for education and local government?" Nah. Then we'd actually have to vote the bums out come November.
Of course, Al touches but the tip of the fiscal iceberg in his brief foray into high tax New York. Still, it is a step in the right direction and a refreshing change from the rhetoric of failure that has long plagued New York.
Al D'Amato. Dragon slayer and defender of property tax reform. Who knew?
A better spokesman for change to the status quo there couldn't be!
Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, Alphonse D'Amato:
Forgotten middle class needs new tax system
By Alfonse D'Amato
Twenty-five years ago, when I began my Senate career, the burning economic issue of the day was inflation in all its ugly manifestations, including sky-high interest rates that were crushing home owners. The forgotten middle class was being squeezed out of the housing market on Long Island by economic forces that threatened the very American ideal of home ownership. Yet with diligent leadership and prudent fiscal management the inflation dragon was slayed and home ownership soared on Long Island.
Today, a dragon is rearing its ugly head again. This time the middle class is being devoured by the enormous increases in property taxes on Long Island. It is not uncommon today for a family that was able to buy a house in the 1980s to find itself in the untenable situation of paying property taxes that dwarf their mortgage payments. A young family just starting out faces the twin demons of astronomical housing prices and stratospheric property taxes.
Now, the forgotten middle class is searching for leadership at all levels – federal, state, and local – to address the most basic of questions: how long will I be able to live in my house when property taxes are spiraling out of control? How did we come to this scary state and how can we get out of it? Here are some observations:
Local governments and school districts have incurred long-term obligations that are clearly unsustainable. Pension and health-care costs are threatening to roar out of control and saddle Long Islanders with a mountain of “unfunded liabilities.” One of the greatest urgencies is for municipalities and school districts to put the brakes on these runaway costs by requiring new hires to accept much more realistic pension and health-care benefits. The taxpaying public should not be asked to pay confiscatory levels of property taxes to support benefits for public employees that are more generous than those they have for themselves.
We must also realize that the inordinate dependence on property taxes to fund education is no longer defensible. A fairer system of taxation must be devised that bases school funding on the broader economic measurements of ability to pay instead of home values and property taxes. And these reforms should be tied to clear restraints on the possible future increases in levels of taxation on Long Island, so that we do not eventually price ourselves out of competition with the rest of suburbanized America.
Local governments and school districts must also face the responsibility to tighten their management and their spending to reflect the limits on taxpayers’ ability to pay. Recent audits of Long Island schools in particular have traced a troubling pattern of sloppy financial oversight, outright fraud and inattention to management practices that can save hard dollars without compromising their core educational mission.
If we do all these things to restrain the growth of property taxes on Long Island, we can eventually replicate the stunning recovery and growth that characterized our area in earlier trying fiscal times. Voters expect the best: uncompromised essential services, thoughtful management, and recognition that their ability to pay is not endless. They will surely punish politicians who fail to deliver a more equitable taxing structure for education and local government. But they will reward leadership, vision, and creativity with yet another burst of economic growth that will lift all Long Island into the forefront of America’s mighty store of prosperity and well being.
- - -
Is this Senator Alphonse D'Amato, icon of New York's Republican Party, suggesting that we replace the onerous property tax with "A fairer system of taxation must be devised that bases school funding on the broader economic measurements of ability to pay instead of home values...?" That sounds like an income tax to us, Al. [Please don't let your colleagues in the GOP hear such talk!]
And did we read Al correctly when he writes, "(voters) will surely punish politicians who fail to deliver a more equitable taxing structure for education and local government?" Nah. Then we'd actually have to vote the bums out come November.
Of course, Al touches but the tip of the fiscal iceberg in his brief foray into high tax New York. Still, it is a step in the right direction and a refreshing change from the rhetoric of failure that has long plagued New York.
Al D'Amato. Dragon slayer and defender of property tax reform. Who knew?
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
"God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes"
How The NYS Legislature Spells Property Tax Relief: Cut A Check!
Homeowners in New York will, indeed, be getting a check in the mail sometime before Election Day, both the Assembly and the Senate passing a measure that "rebates" an average of $250 to property taxpayers.
Those in areas where the property taxes are highest -- i.e., Westchester and Nassau counties -- will see slightly higher amounts in their rebate checks, as will seniors.
Whatever the amount of the check, forget about either spending it all in one place, or, for that matter, spending it all. As a property tax refund, you will owe State income taxes on any money you receive. The Legislature giveth, and the Legislature taketh away!
The property tax rebate is the second coming for the New York State Legislature, whose initial foray into buying votes -- an intended rebate program as part and parcel of this year's budget -- was scuttled by the Governor as "unconstitutional."
"Property taxes were the first and only issue we talked about when the Senate Republicans sat down at the beginning of the year," Senator Michael A. L. Balboni, a Republican from Nassau County, told The New York Times.
"When we went down the list, saying what's the priority, it was property taxes, property taxes, property taxes," Mr. Balboni said. "God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes." [God, it should be known, also told George Bush that he should run for president, and later, that he should invade Iraq (as in, Who Would Jesus Bomb?). And, lest we forget, He also warned Pat Robertson about the tsunami. If these are the people God is talking to nowadays, it kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?]
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (to whom God speaks only through an aide), in highlighting the legislation, pointed to "other tax relief for working families achieved in this year, including the child tax credit, capping the gasoline tax and the elimination of both the sales tax on clothing and the marriage penalty tax."
Yup, these measures have really saved New Yorkers a bundle, haven't they? We venture an educated guess that the property tax rebate will afford homeowners about as much relief from the onerous tax as the cap on the gasoline tax has saved them at the pump!
So, what has the State Legislature really done this session in terms of reform vis-a-vis the arcane and regressive property tax, other than to offer an olive branch to voters in the form of a rebate check, while sheathing the property tax machete behind legislators' backs, ready to strike with the next property tax bill? Uhhh, absolutely nothing.
And what are voters going to do in November, when every seat in the New York State Legislature will be up for grabs? Wait for God to speak to them in the voting booth, we suppose.
- - -
God does not speak through or to The Community Alliance. He does, however, approve this message.
- - -
Click HERE to read Harvey Levinson's Letter Published In Newsday On 6-4-06 Regarding “STAR” Program Rebate Checks (PDF)
Click HERE to read Lawrence Levy's, Fear Could Press Pols To Do More Than A Rebate
- - -
In 1999, the NEW JERSEY State Legislature devised a similar property tax rebate, signed into law by then NJ Governor Christine Whitman. Opponents criticized the plan as falling short of true property tax reform.
Today, New Jersey's property taxes continue to rise, annual rebates notwithstanding, leaving New Jersey homeowners with a property tax levy that is among the highest in the nation [Not to worry, New York. You're still #1!], and the Garden State deeply in debt.
Apparently, the lessons of history do not cross the Hudson River, or waft their way from the State House in Trenton to the Legislative Chambers in Albany.
Homeowners in New York will, indeed, be getting a check in the mail sometime before Election Day, both the Assembly and the Senate passing a measure that "rebates" an average of $250 to property taxpayers.
Those in areas where the property taxes are highest -- i.e., Westchester and Nassau counties -- will see slightly higher amounts in their rebate checks, as will seniors.
Whatever the amount of the check, forget about either spending it all in one place, or, for that matter, spending it all. As a property tax refund, you will owe State income taxes on any money you receive. The Legislature giveth, and the Legislature taketh away!
The property tax rebate is the second coming for the New York State Legislature, whose initial foray into buying votes -- an intended rebate program as part and parcel of this year's budget -- was scuttled by the Governor as "unconstitutional."
"Property taxes were the first and only issue we talked about when the Senate Republicans sat down at the beginning of the year," Senator Michael A. L. Balboni, a Republican from Nassau County, told The New York Times.
"When we went down the list, saying what's the priority, it was property taxes, property taxes, property taxes," Mr. Balboni said. "God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes." [God, it should be known, also told George Bush that he should run for president, and later, that he should invade Iraq (as in, Who Would Jesus Bomb?). And, lest we forget, He also warned Pat Robertson about the tsunami. If these are the people God is talking to nowadays, it kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?]
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (to whom God speaks only through an aide), in highlighting the legislation, pointed to "other tax relief for working families achieved in this year, including the child tax credit, capping the gasoline tax and the elimination of both the sales tax on clothing and the marriage penalty tax."
Yup, these measures have really saved New Yorkers a bundle, haven't they? We venture an educated guess that the property tax rebate will afford homeowners about as much relief from the onerous tax as the cap on the gasoline tax has saved them at the pump!
So, what has the State Legislature really done this session in terms of reform vis-a-vis the arcane and regressive property tax, other than to offer an olive branch to voters in the form of a rebate check, while sheathing the property tax machete behind legislators' backs, ready to strike with the next property tax bill? Uhhh, absolutely nothing.
And what are voters going to do in November, when every seat in the New York State Legislature will be up for grabs? Wait for God to speak to them in the voting booth, we suppose.
- - -
God does not speak through or to The Community Alliance. He does, however, approve this message.
- - -
Click HERE to read Harvey Levinson's Letter Published In Newsday On 6-4-06 Regarding “STAR” Program Rebate Checks (PDF)
Click HERE to read Lawrence Levy's, Fear Could Press Pols To Do More Than A Rebate
- - -
In 1999, the NEW JERSEY State Legislature devised a similar property tax rebate, signed into law by then NJ Governor Christine Whitman. Opponents criticized the plan as falling short of true property tax reform.
Today, New Jersey's property taxes continue to rise, annual rebates notwithstanding, leaving New Jersey homeowners with a property tax levy that is among the highest in the nation [Not to worry, New York. You're still #1!], and the Garden State deeply in debt.
Apparently, the lessons of history do not cross the Hudson River, or waft their way from the State House in Trenton to the Legislative Chambers in Albany.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Don't Replace Property Tax With A New Income Tax. . .
. . . Try An Old One -- The State Income Tax
With all the talk of what to do with the onerous property tax -- including the prospect of a local income tax -- we sometimes overlook the obvious; like using revenues from the existing State income tax to fund our public schools.
Marc Bernstein, a school Superintendent in Valley Stream, suggested just that in a recent Op-Ed piece in The New York Times.
Hmm. Use an income tax we already pay to financially support our schools. And if Albany would actually return a greater share of Long Island's State income tax dollar to the island's school districts, the school portion of the property tax could be eliminated without even having to increase the State income tax burden.
Absolutely brilliant!
- - -
A Smart Tax
By Marc F. Bernstein
Most of Long Island's schools dodged the bullet of budget defeats in last week's votes, reversing a two-year trend. The reasons for only 14 percent rejection compared with 36 percent last year are simple: significant amounts of additional state aid and the lowest spending increases in seven years led to lower property tax increases.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the state can continue to find more money for the suburbs as it meets its court-ordered responsibility to pay billions more to New York City. Moreover, I doubt that the schools will find new ways to keep their budget increases to this year's level — we've cut what can be cut. What we need is the state income tax to replace the property tax as the primary source of money for our schools.
Though Long Islanders continue to be proud of their excellent schools, they won't have the money to pay their school taxes, huge monthly mortgages and skyrocketing energy bills. If we were to make the income tax the main way to pay for schools, we would lower residential property taxes, bring equity to school expenditures in our school districts and slow the rate of increasing school expenses.
If we don't find a way to eliminate or significantly reduce the property tax, educational programs may be unmercifully cut and people may leave the Island in droves.
Using the state income tax to pay for schools could be accompanied by the state's establishing a common spending level for all students, adjusted by region. Thus, parents would be assured that their children will receive a sound basic education no matter where they live and regardless of the school district's property wealth. And if the state was required to pay for all new programs it mandates and districts had to make choices within a fixed budget ceiling, yearly increases in school expenses would be significantly limited.
The path toward setting a guaranteed state-financed minimum for per pupil spending has been paved by the decision by the state's highest court in the landmark Campaign for Fiscal Equity case. With the Court of Appeals having ruled that the state must provide additional money to pay for New York City public schools, other school districts are likely to bring their own lawsuits to try to compel the state to provide more aid to them as well. We could pre-empt these suits by having the state pay for education while eliminating the local school property.
How would this work? The state would establish a common per pupil expenditure level. Each school district would receive state aid commensurate with its number of students, regionally adjusted for the cost of living and taking into consideration that students with special needs require disproportionately higher spending.
Of course, there are issues that must be dealt with before this change in expenditure control and revenue allocation can be made. For example, some communities may insist on spending more money than the state has provided, and they should have the right to do it through a county income tax, sharing the county's commercial property values or through a special resident property tax that they impose on themselves by a supermajority vote.
A survey of Long Islanders released by the Rauch Foundation late last year showed that 55 percent of respondents thought that paying for schools through the income tax was a good idea. Clearly, the people of Long Island understand that this solution will control education expense and equalize educational opportunity while eliminating the burdensome and regressive local property tax.
Marc F. Bernstein is the superintendent of the Valley Stream Central High School District.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
- - -
Great idea, Marc. We wonder if any of our state legislators -- and, perhaps, candidates for Governor -- are reading this?
- - -
Click HERE to read Joye Brown's Talk of the Towns: Property Taxes
With all the talk of what to do with the onerous property tax -- including the prospect of a local income tax -- we sometimes overlook the obvious; like using revenues from the existing State income tax to fund our public schools.
Marc Bernstein, a school Superintendent in Valley Stream, suggested just that in a recent Op-Ed piece in The New York Times.
Hmm. Use an income tax we already pay to financially support our schools. And if Albany would actually return a greater share of Long Island's State income tax dollar to the island's school districts, the school portion of the property tax could be eliminated without even having to increase the State income tax burden.
Absolutely brilliant!
- - -
A Smart TaxBy Marc F. Bernstein
Most of Long Island's schools dodged the bullet of budget defeats in last week's votes, reversing a two-year trend. The reasons for only 14 percent rejection compared with 36 percent last year are simple: significant amounts of additional state aid and the lowest spending increases in seven years led to lower property tax increases.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the state can continue to find more money for the suburbs as it meets its court-ordered responsibility to pay billions more to New York City. Moreover, I doubt that the schools will find new ways to keep their budget increases to this year's level — we've cut what can be cut. What we need is the state income tax to replace the property tax as the primary source of money for our schools.
Though Long Islanders continue to be proud of their excellent schools, they won't have the money to pay their school taxes, huge monthly mortgages and skyrocketing energy bills. If we were to make the income tax the main way to pay for schools, we would lower residential property taxes, bring equity to school expenditures in our school districts and slow the rate of increasing school expenses.
If we don't find a way to eliminate or significantly reduce the property tax, educational programs may be unmercifully cut and people may leave the Island in droves.
Using the state income tax to pay for schools could be accompanied by the state's establishing a common spending level for all students, adjusted by region. Thus, parents would be assured that their children will receive a sound basic education no matter where they live and regardless of the school district's property wealth. And if the state was required to pay for all new programs it mandates and districts had to make choices within a fixed budget ceiling, yearly increases in school expenses would be significantly limited.
The path toward setting a guaranteed state-financed minimum for per pupil spending has been paved by the decision by the state's highest court in the landmark Campaign for Fiscal Equity case. With the Court of Appeals having ruled that the state must provide additional money to pay for New York City public schools, other school districts are likely to bring their own lawsuits to try to compel the state to provide more aid to them as well. We could pre-empt these suits by having the state pay for education while eliminating the local school property.
How would this work? The state would establish a common per pupil expenditure level. Each school district would receive state aid commensurate with its number of students, regionally adjusted for the cost of living and taking into consideration that students with special needs require disproportionately higher spending.
Of course, there are issues that must be dealt with before this change in expenditure control and revenue allocation can be made. For example, some communities may insist on spending more money than the state has provided, and they should have the right to do it through a county income tax, sharing the county's commercial property values or through a special resident property tax that they impose on themselves by a supermajority vote.
A survey of Long Islanders released by the Rauch Foundation late last year showed that 55 percent of respondents thought that paying for schools through the income tax was a good idea. Clearly, the people of Long Island understand that this solution will control education expense and equalize educational opportunity while eliminating the burdensome and regressive local property tax.
Marc F. Bernstein is the superintendent of the Valley Stream Central High School District.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
- - -
Great idea, Marc. We wonder if any of our state legislators -- and, perhaps, candidates for Governor -- are reading this?
- - -
Click HERE to read Joye Brown's Talk of the Towns: Property Taxes
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Taking On School Taxes: Many Choices; Few Options
Levy Looks To Shore Up Leaks In School District Levees
Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is making some noise in the school yard, talking of consolidations, replacing the property tax with an income tax, and electing school Superintendents.
The New York Times reports that Levy’s call for the popular election of Superintendents arises out of a sense that “the system clearly needs more accountability.” [SEE, Politics and the Schoolhouse.]
Of course, we all know that elections and accountability don’t always – or usually – go hand in hand, and evidence the election of judges versus their appointment as case studies on accountability and competence, not to mention fairness and impartiality.
The call for the election of school Superintendents is a talking point – a headline designed to grab the attention of the public. That it does. Beyond this seemingly democratic notion, however, lies a stark reality – that the voting public holds no special edge in selecting “leaders” – be they Presidents or school Superintendents – who are competent, judicious, and accountable to their will. As for the ballot box fending off corruption, well, the record (Congressional and otherwise) speaks for itself.
Scandal is not unique to School Districts, and what better measure of accountability than to have a duly elected School Board, whose Trustees, in theory, have at least a modicum of expertise (either by background or acquired knowledge), select a Superintendent. Then again, we assume here that voters elect competent, courageous, and accountable residents to serve as Trustees. We rest our case. Whether we butt heads with the rock or with the hard place, you can bet that our heads will get the worst of it.
Other recommendations are being floated, and at least some of them warrant closer examination.
1. Consolidation of School Districts.
When Patrick Halpin was Suffolk County Executive, a study commissioned by him suggested consolidating suffolk’s 71 school district’s into 30, saving (in 1990s dollars) $55 million a year. The proposal was rejected by the voters, with Halpin telling The Times, “There was a greater allegiance to football teams than to the taxpayers.”
Ah, that old provincialism clouding common sense – not to mention dollars and cents. “If you ask people if they believe there’s too much government, they say yes,” Halpin told The Times. “But if it means merging a local school district or water company, then people will rebel and revolt against it." [Add to the list fire districts and sanitary districts, among others. As long as each community believes there is a need – or worse, an entitlement – to its own sanitary district, fire department, or school system, there will be duplication, there will be excess, and there will be a high price to pay to support these self-indulgent fiefdoms.]
2. Cap property taxes.
Assemblyman Fred Thiele has proposed a cap on property taxes for households with less than $200,000 in annual income.
“Cap” at what? The present level? Half that? Twice the going rate? And since when does the property tax have anything to do with income?
Capping the tax does not cap the costs, particularly when a majority of a school district’s expenses are contractual or mandated (and not funded). Who covers the “gap” under a “cap?”
3. “The check is in the mail.”
Governor George Pataki has proposed a rebate of $400 to homeowners in districts that limit annual spending increases to 4 percent.
Wow. 400 bucks. That’ll make a real dent in our property tax bill, won’t it? [Don’t spend that rebate check just yet. When was the last time your school district held the line at 4 percent?]
4. One Budget, one vote!
State Senator Charles Fuschillo has proposed banning the re-vote of failed school budgets, giving voters one shot at avoiding austerity.
Not a bad idea. We don’t get a “do-over” if we don’t like the outcome of other elections, do we?
CAUTION: On the last budget-go-round, we saw contingency budgets that were actually higher than the budgets residents were voting on. Vote down the budget and pay more? Only on Long Island. [Senator Kenneth LaValle has proposed that districts be required to show residents a side-by-side comparison of the budget to be voted on and the contingency budget.]
5. Run schools like the multi-million dollar businesses they are.
Senator LaValle has also suggested that school districts hire Superintendents who are not just educators, but who have business savvy.
Every district already has an Assistant Superintendent for Business (or its equivalent), yet another six figure salary to pay. Granted, an Ed.D. does not necessarily make you a better school administrator, but hiring an MBA provides no guarantee that you won’t have an Enron or WorldCom on your hands.
6. Make them take “no” for an answer.
The suggestion has been made – though rarely by elected officials – that School Boards need to sharpen their pencils and begin to cut costs. While the theme has always been cutting costs across the board – from top to bottom – the reality, more often than not, has yielded cuts in educational programs and extracurricular initiatives, leaving administrators' and teachers' remuneration largely unscathed.
The buck has to stop somewhere, and one place to start is with those pie in the sky salaries paid to Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Principals, Assistant Principals, and, yes, quite a few of our teachers – particularly those on the higher end of the food chain who look to sweeten their lots in order to fatten their pension pots.
School Boards need to take a hard look at what they are spending, and take a hard line in negotiations with everyone from District Superintendents to building custodians. The era of the golden fleece is over. It may be a hard pill for some to swallow (especially the union reps), but hey, if you don’t like it, take a walk. [And if you do walk, remember the State’s Taylor Law.] We sense there are qualified administrators and teachers by the dozen, grossly underpaid and waiting in the wings in NYC, to step right in!
7. Share the wealth.
Commercial property taxes should be apportioned among all school districts in the County in which they are collected.
Is there any reason that the tax revenues generated by, say, Roosevelt Field should go exclusively to the Uniondale and Garden City School Districts? Equity and reason say no.
8. Replace the school portion of the property tax with a dedicated income tax.
An idea whose time is long overdue. Like consolidation, however, until we change the mindset of residents that a property tax, based solely on the market value (in today’s dollars) of one’s home, is somehow preferable – and less onerous – than a nominal, graduated income tax, based on one’s ability to pay, Long Islanders will be obliged to dig deeper into their wallets to finance our schools, and, in many instances, will continue to throw good money after bad.
- - -
We'd like to know what you think. We'd particularly like to hear from School Board Trustees -- the folks we elect to represent the financial interests of residents while they struggle to advance the educational objectives of our children. We know you're out there and that you're reading. Ground Hog Day is over. It's time to come out of the shadows!
Post your comments to this blog. Better still, pen a Guest Blog for publication. The discussion and debate begin here. Action and results start with you!
Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is making some noise in the school yard, talking of consolidations, replacing the property tax with an income tax, and electing school Superintendents.
The New York Times reports that Levy’s call for the popular election of Superintendents arises out of a sense that “the system clearly needs more accountability.” [SEE, Politics and the Schoolhouse.]
Of course, we all know that elections and accountability don’t always – or usually – go hand in hand, and evidence the election of judges versus their appointment as case studies on accountability and competence, not to mention fairness and impartiality.
The call for the election of school Superintendents is a talking point – a headline designed to grab the attention of the public. That it does. Beyond this seemingly democratic notion, however, lies a stark reality – that the voting public holds no special edge in selecting “leaders” – be they Presidents or school Superintendents – who are competent, judicious, and accountable to their will. As for the ballot box fending off corruption, well, the record (Congressional and otherwise) speaks for itself.
Scandal is not unique to School Districts, and what better measure of accountability than to have a duly elected School Board, whose Trustees, in theory, have at least a modicum of expertise (either by background or acquired knowledge), select a Superintendent. Then again, we assume here that voters elect competent, courageous, and accountable residents to serve as Trustees. We rest our case. Whether we butt heads with the rock or with the hard place, you can bet that our heads will get the worst of it.
Other recommendations are being floated, and at least some of them warrant closer examination.
1. Consolidation of School Districts.
When Patrick Halpin was Suffolk County Executive, a study commissioned by him suggested consolidating suffolk’s 71 school district’s into 30, saving (in 1990s dollars) $55 million a year. The proposal was rejected by the voters, with Halpin telling The Times, “There was a greater allegiance to football teams than to the taxpayers.”
Ah, that old provincialism clouding common sense – not to mention dollars and cents. “If you ask people if they believe there’s too much government, they say yes,” Halpin told The Times. “But if it means merging a local school district or water company, then people will rebel and revolt against it." [Add to the list fire districts and sanitary districts, among others. As long as each community believes there is a need – or worse, an entitlement – to its own sanitary district, fire department, or school system, there will be duplication, there will be excess, and there will be a high price to pay to support these self-indulgent fiefdoms.]
2. Cap property taxes.
Assemblyman Fred Thiele has proposed a cap on property taxes for households with less than $200,000 in annual income.
“Cap” at what? The present level? Half that? Twice the going rate? And since when does the property tax have anything to do with income?
Capping the tax does not cap the costs, particularly when a majority of a school district’s expenses are contractual or mandated (and not funded). Who covers the “gap” under a “cap?”
3. “The check is in the mail.”
Governor George Pataki has proposed a rebate of $400 to homeowners in districts that limit annual spending increases to 4 percent.
Wow. 400 bucks. That’ll make a real dent in our property tax bill, won’t it? [Don’t spend that rebate check just yet. When was the last time your school district held the line at 4 percent?]
4. One Budget, one vote!
State Senator Charles Fuschillo has proposed banning the re-vote of failed school budgets, giving voters one shot at avoiding austerity.
Not a bad idea. We don’t get a “do-over” if we don’t like the outcome of other elections, do we?
CAUTION: On the last budget-go-round, we saw contingency budgets that were actually higher than the budgets residents were voting on. Vote down the budget and pay more? Only on Long Island. [Senator Kenneth LaValle has proposed that districts be required to show residents a side-by-side comparison of the budget to be voted on and the contingency budget.]
5. Run schools like the multi-million dollar businesses they are.
Senator LaValle has also suggested that school districts hire Superintendents who are not just educators, but who have business savvy.
Every district already has an Assistant Superintendent for Business (or its equivalent), yet another six figure salary to pay. Granted, an Ed.D. does not necessarily make you a better school administrator, but hiring an MBA provides no guarantee that you won’t have an Enron or WorldCom on your hands.
6. Make them take “no” for an answer.
The suggestion has been made – though rarely by elected officials – that School Boards need to sharpen their pencils and begin to cut costs. While the theme has always been cutting costs across the board – from top to bottom – the reality, more often than not, has yielded cuts in educational programs and extracurricular initiatives, leaving administrators' and teachers' remuneration largely unscathed.
The buck has to stop somewhere, and one place to start is with those pie in the sky salaries paid to Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Principals, Assistant Principals, and, yes, quite a few of our teachers – particularly those on the higher end of the food chain who look to sweeten their lots in order to fatten their pension pots.
School Boards need to take a hard look at what they are spending, and take a hard line in negotiations with everyone from District Superintendents to building custodians. The era of the golden fleece is over. It may be a hard pill for some to swallow (especially the union reps), but hey, if you don’t like it, take a walk. [And if you do walk, remember the State’s Taylor Law.] We sense there are qualified administrators and teachers by the dozen, grossly underpaid and waiting in the wings in NYC, to step right in!
7. Share the wealth.
Commercial property taxes should be apportioned among all school districts in the County in which they are collected.
Is there any reason that the tax revenues generated by, say, Roosevelt Field should go exclusively to the Uniondale and Garden City School Districts? Equity and reason say no.
8. Replace the school portion of the property tax with a dedicated income tax.
An idea whose time is long overdue. Like consolidation, however, until we change the mindset of residents that a property tax, based solely on the market value (in today’s dollars) of one’s home, is somehow preferable – and less onerous – than a nominal, graduated income tax, based on one’s ability to pay, Long Islanders will be obliged to dig deeper into their wallets to finance our schools, and, in many instances, will continue to throw good money after bad.
- - -
We'd like to know what you think. We'd particularly like to hear from School Board Trustees -- the folks we elect to represent the financial interests of residents while they struggle to advance the educational objectives of our children. We know you're out there and that you're reading. Ground Hog Day is over. It's time to come out of the shadows!
Post your comments to this blog. Better still, pen a Guest Blog for publication. The discussion and debate begin here. Action and results start with you!
Thursday, January 26, 2006
It Really Is The Property Tax. DUH!
New Study Finds Property Tax Most Onerous; LIers Favor Income Tax To Replace School District Property Tax
Why do we pay millions of dollars to ask questions we already know the answers to? Who knows? Let's get a grant, do a study, take a survey, and find out!
Anyway, the latest survey conducted by the Rauch Foundation in Garden City concludes that a majority of Long Islanders "support alternative funding schemes for public schools including an income tax and redistributing business tax revenues equally among districts..." [SEE Newsday's At The Tipping Point On Taxes.]
Cringing at the use of the word "schemes" in the same sentence as "public schools," and leaving aside that this "majority" evidently does not reside in Hempstead Town (where they apparently "enjoy" paying excruciatingly high property taxes), we can at least say this: "Harvey Levinson, you've been vindicated!"
According to the survey, 55% of Long Islanders favored reducing the property tax by two-thirds and instituting an income tax.
"The steady unyielding property taxes every year are unfair because there is no adjustment in terms of your life circumstance, your ability to pay," Patrick McGivney, a New York City firefighter who lives in Miller Place with his wife and three preschoolers, told Newsday. "I'm absolutely for an income tax."
As reported in Newsday, "Long Island has a whopping 901 governmental entities (including Special Districts). Together, they spent $15.9 billion in 2003, the most recent available data, with school expenditures representing almost one-half. Schools also were responsible for the largest increases in spending during the past five years. They receive the lion's share of their funding from property taxes, which have risen to an average of $7,477 from $6,858 in 2001."
With school district levies constituting nearly 60% of the property tax burden, and the market value of Long Island's housing stock in the stratosphere, is it any wonder that, given some thought, most Long Islanders would like to scrap the property tax (based on the market value of one's house) in favor of a more equitable income tax (based on one's ability to pay)?
This seemed like a no-brainer to us -- the convoluted dissonance of income tax detractors aside -- and it still does.
When polled by Newsday on the question of what reason (if any) has prompted residents to consider moving away from Long Island, the responses were as follows:
34.1% - The housing prices are too high (1634 responses)
54.3% - Property taxes are too high (2605 responses)
0.8% - I'm unsatisfied with local services such as sanitation (36 responses)
1.9% - Too much crime (91 responses)
1.1% - Weak school system (54 responses)
7.9% - I would never leave Long Island (378 responses)
4798 total responses
The numbers, of course, are most telling. Add to this the nebulous "quality of life" concerns so difficult to put a finger on, and the general dissatisfaction of residents with life on our Long Island must be said (survey or no survey) to be markedly greater than even these poll numbers demonstrate.
Replacing the regressive property tax with a progressive income tax, a measure advocated by The Community Alliance, is not a new idea, as Newsday reported in New Proposal Resurrects Old Idea. Mario Cuomo, then New York's Governor, suggested it over a decade ago. Harvey Levinson, Chairman of Nassau County's Board of Assessors, gave new life to considering a local income tax last year (despite the obvious political pitfalls), and continues to champion its cause. Now, Long Islanders themselves have voiced their opinion on replacing the school property tax with an income tax, giving their nod of approval. Perhaps this is an idea whose time has finally come!
In 2006, every seat in the New York State Legislature will be up for grabs. Could this be the year that our legislators finally address the taxing issues that weigh so heavily upon Long Islander's minds as well as their wallets? Let us hope so!
- - -
Click HERE to read At The Breaking Point? Taxation And Governance On Long Island.
- - -
Click HERE to read the New York Times article, Property Taxes Push Residents To Their Limit.
- - -
Today's e-Poll (If you have yet to vote in this e-Poll, please do so. If you have previously voted, we thank you):
Click HERE to check out all e-Polls and e-Poll results.
Why do we pay millions of dollars to ask questions we already know the answers to? Who knows? Let's get a grant, do a study, take a survey, and find out!
Anyway, the latest survey conducted by the Rauch Foundation in Garden City concludes that a majority of Long Islanders "support alternative funding schemes for public schools including an income tax and redistributing business tax revenues equally among districts..." [SEE Newsday's At The Tipping Point On Taxes.]
Cringing at the use of the word "schemes" in the same sentence as "public schools," and leaving aside that this "majority" evidently does not reside in Hempstead Town (where they apparently "enjoy" paying excruciatingly high property taxes), we can at least say this: "Harvey Levinson, you've been vindicated!"
According to the survey, 55% of Long Islanders favored reducing the property tax by two-thirds and instituting an income tax.
"The steady unyielding property taxes every year are unfair because there is no adjustment in terms of your life circumstance, your ability to pay," Patrick McGivney, a New York City firefighter who lives in Miller Place with his wife and three preschoolers, told Newsday. "I'm absolutely for an income tax."
As reported in Newsday, "Long Island has a whopping 901 governmental entities (including Special Districts). Together, they spent $15.9 billion in 2003, the most recent available data, with school expenditures representing almost one-half. Schools also were responsible for the largest increases in spending during the past five years. They receive the lion's share of their funding from property taxes, which have risen to an average of $7,477 from $6,858 in 2001."
With school district levies constituting nearly 60% of the property tax burden, and the market value of Long Island's housing stock in the stratosphere, is it any wonder that, given some thought, most Long Islanders would like to scrap the property tax (based on the market value of one's house) in favor of a more equitable income tax (based on one's ability to pay)?
This seemed like a no-brainer to us -- the convoluted dissonance of income tax detractors aside -- and it still does.
When polled by Newsday on the question of what reason (if any) has prompted residents to consider moving away from Long Island, the responses were as follows:
34.1% - The housing prices are too high (1634 responses)
54.3% - Property taxes are too high (2605 responses)
0.8% - I'm unsatisfied with local services such as sanitation (36 responses)
1.9% - Too much crime (91 responses)
1.1% - Weak school system (54 responses)
7.9% - I would never leave Long Island (378 responses)
4798 total responses
The numbers, of course, are most telling. Add to this the nebulous "quality of life" concerns so difficult to put a finger on, and the general dissatisfaction of residents with life on our Long Island must be said (survey or no survey) to be markedly greater than even these poll numbers demonstrate.
Replacing the regressive property tax with a progressive income tax, a measure advocated by The Community Alliance, is not a new idea, as Newsday reported in New Proposal Resurrects Old Idea. Mario Cuomo, then New York's Governor, suggested it over a decade ago. Harvey Levinson, Chairman of Nassau County's Board of Assessors, gave new life to considering a local income tax last year (despite the obvious political pitfalls), and continues to champion its cause. Now, Long Islanders themselves have voiced their opinion on replacing the school property tax with an income tax, giving their nod of approval. Perhaps this is an idea whose time has finally come!
In 2006, every seat in the New York State Legislature will be up for grabs. Could this be the year that our legislators finally address the taxing issues that weigh so heavily upon Long Islander's minds as well as their wallets? Let us hope so!
- - -
Click HERE to read At The Breaking Point? Taxation And Governance On Long Island.
- - -
Click HERE to read the New York Times article, Property Taxes Push Residents To Their Limit.
- - -
Today's e-Poll (If you have yet to vote in this e-Poll, please do so. If you have previously voted, we thank you):
Click HERE to check out all e-Polls and e-Poll results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)